Re: libglademm proposed change: arbitrary constructors for get_widget_derived

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:17 +0200, Marek Materzok wrote:
> Dnia 04-05-2005, =C5=9Bro o godzinie 18:17 +0200, Murray Cumming napisa=
=C5=82(a):
>=20
> > I think it's slightly useful. It allows you to use a derived widget b=
ut
> > do things to that widget's children outside of the class, instead of
> > inside. Personally, I think the derived widget should not want you to
> > mess around with its (normally protected) child widgets directly like
> > this. Can you persuade me that it's useful?
>=20
> I've used it to create a pattern, in which all access to children was
> inside the class, but I could have additional parameters to the
> constructor of that class.=20
>=20
> > If you revise the patch, please put it in bugzilla:
> > http://www.gtkmm.org/bugs.shtml#CreatingPatches
>=20
> Added, bug #303044.
>=20
> > This idea might also be interesting. I _still_ have not looked at it
> > properly:
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D134161
>=20
> I'm shocked. I'm doing nearly the same thing in my code, but using the
> changes to glademm from my patch. This idea seems cleaner than mine,
> because in my version I use a static factory function, and here just a
> constructor is needed. I'll test this idea.

Great. If you can make an actual patch then it will make it quicker for
me to review.

--=20
Murray Cumming
[email protected]
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com