On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:01:20PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a new signal "row-delete" and > use that instead of changing the semantics of "row-deleted"? If that > would have been done in the first place, then you wouldn't have said > inconsistency now.
Yes, I agree that this complete problem wouldn't exist if we had added a new signal. However, right now both the filter and sort models have been emitting row-deleted before deleting the row and the documentation has had the said note for quite some time now, so personally I prefer to fix up the list and tree store at this point. Later on we can then easily add a post-row-deleted if required. Moving the filter and sort models over to a "pre-row-deleted" would require patching up tree view and will break any object (views, models, etc) which create their own references to iterators and release those on row-deleted, plus all third-party models doing reference counting. I think such a change would be more troublesome from a compatibility point of view than the change of gtk_tree_model_foreach() (for just the list and tree store) as outlined in my previous mail. regards, -kris. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list