On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function (and thus part of the API).
Do you mean destroy? It got renamed in the big _destruct rename, and it was because I'd been using it that I started poking around and finding this. But I'm quite okay with the API being "destruct(obj)" rather than "obj->destroy()", as long as it works reliably.
ChrisA
I actually prefer destroy because it makes more sense grammatically, to go along with create.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Chris Angelicorosuav@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function (and thus part of the API).
Do you mean destroy? It got renamed in the big _destruct rename, and it was because I'd been using it that I started poking around and finding this. But I'm quite okay with the API being "destruct(obj)" rather than "obj->destroy()", as long as it works reliably.
ChrisA
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function (and thus part of the API).
Do you mean destroy? It got renamed in the big _destruct rename, and
Yes, the LFUN got renamed. The GTK2 API function however did not.
it was because I'd been using it that I started poking around and finding this. But I'm quite okay with the API being "destruct(obj)" rather than "obj->destroy()", as long as it works reliably.
Using _destruct() for this kind of stuff is NOT a good idea as it gets called in a signal context.
/grubba
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
Chris Angelico -
Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum -
Lance Dillon