2010/3/25 Chris Vine <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:46:08 +0100 > Murray Cumming <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm sorry for not taking the time to consider this discussion fully >> right now, but I do want to revisit it properly for gtkmm 3. I hope to >> have time later. Right now, I'm not putting much thought into gtkmm 3 >> because it's not clear when the (silly, unnecessary, IMHO) >> ABI-breaking GTK+ 3 will happen, giving us the (blameless) >> opportunity to do gtkmm 3. >> >> Even if we don't change this, I hope we'll have the big discussion >> again (like we did for gtkmm 2) so we know why we've decided whatever >> we decide. > > While we are on the subject of gtkmm-3, can I make one other suggestion > in addition to weak pointers, which will help safe and sane programming > with gtkmm far more than discussing whether a particular object is held > by smart pointer or not. That is for gtkmm to provide its own > thread-safe sigc::trackable class which can interface with the rest of > libsigc++.
+1 There are a few severe bugs in libsigc++ which require breaking ABI, such as the performance on slot removal bug (libsigc++ walks the entire list of slots whenever one is removed). I think sigc::trackable should have protected virtual functions for its slot management operations, so that gtkmm can override them to implement thread safety using GMutex; this would avoid adding a dependency on Glib or Boost to libsigc++. Regards, Krzysztof _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
