On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It was my understanding that we wanted to have the instance classes to > avoid having multiple class objects by mistake and to avoid creating and > destroying these objects at the wrong moment. > that was one of the reasons I created them that way, yes. > > So I'm confused why we would now remove them? > On the case of the about dialog I agree that the change proposed by boris is a good one. it`s a widget that: 1 - the other widgets doesn`t depend on 2 - serves only for the purpose of showing the about screen, and it`s not connected to anything else. the way that he did, the widget gets deleted when it``s closed, and created when it`s invoked, not shareable. wich gives us a bit of memory - gain ( tiny bit but appreciated. ) > /D > > On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 09:03 -0200, Tomaz Canabrava wrote: > > I don't mind removing the instance() classes, I created them that way > > so it was easyer to create them in the correct order ( meaning, no > > order at all :P ) > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Boris Barbulovski > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > An SubsurfaceAbout class cleanup. > > > > > > Main change is that now SubsurfaceAbout doesn't have instance > > object, but it constructs and destructs dynamically. > > > > > > If small patch it's acceptable, and continue with this pattern > > by remove other instance() members(around 10). > > > > > > br, Boris.. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > subsurface mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > subsurface mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface > > >
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
