On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:01:18PM +0200, Tadej Borov??ak wrote:
> Hi.
>
> > OK - you did see my constructor example, no? It would be cleaner the other
> > way, wouldn't it?
>
> I'm not a GTK+ developer and cannot speak for them, but having
> consistent API is far more important to me than having some parts of
> the code being brief.
It isn't so much being brief, but that the change from being able to
access widget->allocation.width directly to needing to use
gtk_widget_get_allocation because of the decision to make code compile
with GSEAL_ENABLE means that I now have to invent
#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION (2,18,0)
static GtkAllocation *dasher_get_widget_allocation(GtkWidget *w)
{
GtkAllocation a;
gtk_widget_get_allocation(w, &a);
return &a;
}
#endif
and then convert
CCanvas::CCanvas(GtkWidget *pCanvas, CPangoCache *pPangoCache)
#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION (2,18,0)
: CDasherScreen(dasher_get_widget_allocation(pCanvas)->width,
dasher_get_widget_allocation(pCanvas)->height) {
#else
: CDasherScreen(pCanvas->allocation.width, pCanvas->allocation.height) {
#endif
which seems unnecessary.
Cheers,
Patrick
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
