On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Bob Jamison wrote:
ted@...11... wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Peter Moulder wrote:
How do we feel about requiring gtkmm 2.6, which was released Mar 2005 ?
Ted, how easy is it to do without those unparent calls?
It isn't difficult, they're just there as an optimization. Actually, I think it's a bug in GTKmm that I need them at all, but that's a diffirent discussion. They're not important enough to break compatibility with older versions of GTKmm for sure.
Wouldn't it be just a shorthand form of something like get_parent().remove(this) or something?
I think it's actually simpler than that, it is just setting the parent field to NULL. At the point I'm calling it the parent should have already been destroyed, and the only reason I have a copy of the object is that I incremented it's ref count. But, you'd think a dying parent would fix the parent field on it's children... But, it seemed like bad form to fix the "Parent not NULL error" by setting the parent to NULL :)
--Ted