On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:57:10 +0100 Murray Cumming <murr...@murrayc.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 00:55 +0000, Chris Vine wrote: > > That does not explain why Glib::Object and Gtk::Object are treated > > differently - it does not seem to me that > > Glib::ObjectBase/Glib::Object > > needed to be implemented this way, but they were. It may possibly > > be a > > hangover from glib-1 and gtk+-1. > > I don't understand what you are asking, but GObject and GtkObject have > different memory management, as you say, so we handle them > differently. The Gtk::Object::destroy_notify_() method override > handles the concept of "managed", which does not exist for > Glib::Objectbase::destroy_notify(). There's similar cleverness to deal > with that elsewhere too.
In glib-2/gtk+-2 a lot of the code formerly in GtkObject was moved to GObject. There is no significant difference in memory management between a pure GObject and a GtkObject, other than the floating reference, which amounts to very little (it is a device to make it easier for containers to take ownership). They could both be wrapped identically in gtkmm, as they are in other bindings such as PyGTK and java-gtk+. They have not been, and that's fine. Chris. _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
