On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 14:58 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > For example, the following commonly-used one-liner: > tree_view.get_selection()->set_mode(...); > > would become (without validity-checking): > tree_view.get_selection().lock()->set_mode(...);
Sorry, what does that lock() do in this case? I don't see how anything gtkmm can do could stop a Treeselection from being invalid/ineffective after the TreeView has been deleted. Also, I understand the previous examples that check before dereferencing, but I'm concerned that any part of my code could potentially cause the TreeView to be deleted, so all my code will look like this if(ptr) ptr->do_something(); if(ptr) ptr->do_next_thing(); if(ptr) ptr->do_third_thing(); And that will be particularly awful when it forces us to declare variables apart form their initialization, and make special efforts to always clean up properly. > which isn't much more typing but is significantly less pleasant to > look > at. If you actually checked the pointer before using it, you'd get > something more like the first example above. -- [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
