On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 13:40 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > So if I understand correctly, you have a ListModel and an underlying > data container.The ListModel has the same number of elements as your > underlying data store, but contains shared_ptrs to the elements of > your data store instead of copying the actual data into the liststore? > > If I summarized that correctly, it's an improvement over copying the > values into a liststore, but it still doesn't completely solve the > problem of synchronizing the data. Since the ListStore items point to > the actual underlying data, changing a value in the liststore would > also change the underlying data. On the other hand, if you added or > removed an item in the underlying data store, you'd have to also > explicitly add or remove a shared pointer in the ListModel. Right?
Yes. > What I would like is to have one canonical data store that can be > manipulated either through the standard container interface or the > TreeModel interface and not have to worry about synchronization > between the two. Is that a pipe dream? I don't think so. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
