Gus Koppel wrote: >While the case of returned "const gchar *"s is rather simple, the real >problem to me is that the API docs are quite less explicit when it comes >to more complex objects than just string constants. > >For instance, whether and how reference counts of objects related to >treeviews are changed by what GTK+ functions dealing with them remains >undocumented. > >For instance: whether gtk_tree_view_set_model() changes the reference >counts of either the newly set or the replaced GtkTreeModel remains as >unclear as whether gtk_tree_view_get_selection() increases the reference >count of the selection object or not. > >If I remember right the first function changes reference counts while >the 2nd one doesn't but I may be wrong on this. Frequent explicit checks >on object reference counts after many GTK+ functions are my only way to >make sure about this while developping. > >I wish the API docs would be added a line for _every_ get- or set- >function, which explicitly notes whether and how reference counts of >associated objects are changed by that function. > IMHO especially the Gtk docs lack a lot here. For many methods one has to look into the sources to find out wheter to unref or free. Problem is that that docs don't use G_CONST_RETURN. Some examples: gtk_*_get_model() gtk_combo_box_get_popup_accessible() gtk_widget_get_accessible() (this one is 100% undocumented)
Filed as http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311536 Please add others you find. Similiar problem applies to methods like gtk_tree_model_get() These functions should realy document wheter the ref object references returned in their out-params or not (they dont). Stefan _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
