Tim Janik wrote:
in fact, there is no technical reason for this. so many people have argued this to be better though (havoc even went so far as to argue why this would be conceptually neccessary), that i decided to simply sponsor an object type if that helps the majority to understand which objects are floating and which are not.
Just curious, how it will prevent someone from using floating reference in GObject-not-GUnowned-derived object? This fuzz was not about names, it was about "what do I do with this instance of GObject-derived class". Introducing fancy class with fancy name doesn't change things for GtkTreeModel, for example. Those who proposed separate class proposed floating reference to be implemented in this class; they did not ask to add one more class for sake of nice name or something. Yevgen _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list