Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > ... > The cast in the last line wouldn't be necessary if > Fl_Shared_Image::copy() would return what it should ! > > Thus my question: Should this be changed? IMHO yes, but what > about compatibility? I think that most code would compile and > work okay, even if we changed it. And I tested it with Ian's > example code after my local change: it compiled and linked > without error, as I expected, but maybe there is other code?
I'd actually vote to move the refcounting to Fl_Image, and then Fl_Shared_Image's destructor can remove the image from the shared image list. > So here is my vote: > > +1 for making Fl_Shared_Image::copy() return Fl_Shared_Image*. -1, since you can't overload the return type of virtual methods. > ... > Fl_Shared_Image::refcount() should *REALLY* be private or at least > protected! This would prevent code like this: > ... > My vote: > > +1 for making refcount() private. If anything it needs to be protected so that subclasses can access the count. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
