On 2/25/07, Robert Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Jonathon Jongsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > : > > > >This is a very common mis-understanding. The 2.4 you see is actually > >part of the library name and indicates the API/ABI version. > >Basically, the API/ABI of gtkmm was broken between version 2.2 and > >2.4, but hasn't been broken since then, so all new releases are > >backwards compatible with the 2.4 release. And the ListViewText was > >added in gtkmm-2.4 version 2.10. Does that make sense? I know it's > >rather confusing, but gtkmm (and other gnome platform libraries) tend > >to add an api version number to their name when API breaks so that > >they can be installed in parallell. Gtk+ also does this, but hasn't > >broken API since 2.0, so the newest version of GTK is called gtk+-2.0 > >version 2.10.x. > > Right, OK. But the Gtk documentation makes it a LOT clearer which > version of GTK-2.0 is referred to (and I think the common 2.0 is much > less confusing than 2.4 anyway). In particular, the GTK documentation > explicitly declares itself as for version 2.12 and only mentions 2.0 in > the context of "lots of files and directories are called that". > > For another useful hint, the Python documentation (which doesn't do the > confusing thing in the first place) takes to trouble to note on each > class/method/library which version it appeared in (unless it was there > in 1.6, which is ancient history now). > > Just a couple of thoughts for the documentation maintainers, on how to > reduce the common-ness of this misunderstanding. > -- > Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk > > The contents of this | Windows NT crashed. > message are purely | I am the Blue Screen of Death. > my opinion. Don't | No one hears your screams. > believe a word. | > _______________________________________________ > gtkmm-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list >
In a not entirely unrelated question, does anyone know the reasoning behind this versioning? I've always thought it was quite odd that gtk and gtkmm didn't follow the ubqiuitous major.minor.revision scheme. Just a curiosity. Paul Davis _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
