apparently I accidentally only sent this reply to daniel. forwarding to the list.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathon Jongsma <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Removing disabling of exceptions/properties/signal-handlers To: Daniel Elstner <[email protected]> On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 15:58 +0100, Daniel Elstner wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 30.12.2009, 09:51 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming: > > > I doubt that we can remove the no-exceptions build because disabling > > exceptions is still very popular, mostly out of habit, and is often > > enforced by awkward hand-built build systems. > > But it is the single most important bit, by far. If you have to cater > for both cases, with and without exceptions, you may as well not offer > exceptions in the first place. It leads to a fundamentally different > style of programming. > > In other words, a gtkmm without exceptions is not the same toolkit > anymore. > > Also note that we already rely on RTTI. I agree with Daniel. The exceptions switch is the one I really want to get rid of. It makes wrapping libraries hell: if any functions need to be hand-wrapped, you need to #ifdef tons of stuff and it becomes a giant pain. Also, as daniel said, it requires a totally different style of programming, so making an application work with both styles of gtkmm API requires a ton of extra work, so nobody ever actually does it. Which means that almost no gtkmm applications will actually run on maemo without a lot of work to port them. Because of this, there are hardly any gtkmm applications available for maemo, which means that all of the work done to slim down gtkmm on maemo seems a bit pointless since almost nobody actually uses it. -- Jonathon Jongsma <[email protected]> -- jonner _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
