On Thu, 2004-26-08 at 15:59 +0800, James Henstridge wrote: > On 26/08/04 14:22, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > Also, your macro looks like it might break sometimes. The > g_value_init() function expects the GValue to be zeroed out (the type > field at a minimum), and g_new() doesn't guarantee this. replacing it > with g_new0() would fix this problem. I spotted where the docs say it must be zero init'd, but I can't see in the source *why* thats needed. I guess so you don't call init on a value that has already been init'd without calling reset first. Perhaps its my ignorance of GValue, why is memory allocation GValue's problem, thus necessitating an unset function. Shouldn't I dealloc my own pointers? > > If you are doing this for your tutorial, it would probably be better to > document the common usage of GValues rather than using a non standard > g_value_new() macro. For some internal code, I prefer to pass a heap allocated GValue pointer to some unnecessary copies of stack alloc'd GValues, so I use it outside of the tutorial (which can be changed). Basically I don't see any reason *not* to add it once the g_new0 bug is fixed. > > James. > Thanks James! Cheers, Ryan _______________________________________________ gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
