On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:11 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 09:55 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > We could just unref the underlying object, but once the wrapping C++ > > object has been destroyed, the vfuncs (and default signal handlers) will > > fall back to default C implementations, if any, and this could even > > cause different UI behaviour. > > > > If I must, then I'll force Gtk::CellRenderer and Gtk::TreeViewColumn to > > be used only via RefPtr<>, like other reference-counted objects, but > > this will probably just annoy C++ programmers. They feel like widgets, > > so it seems odd for them to not have similar memory management. > > g_object_run_dispose() is very similar to gtk_widget_destroy() in terms > of memory management semantics.
Yes, after talking on irc we came to the same conclusion. > The main difference is that there's no ::destroy signal emitted. For some reason we use a qdata destroy callback to detect GObject destruction anyway, instead of the "destroy" signal. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list