Re: GNOME GTK-- Projects
- From: John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>
- To: Michael Hudson <mwh21 cam ac uk>
- CC: Erik Andersen <andersen inconnect com>, Gnome List <gnome-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: GNOME GTK-- Projects
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 15:55:41 -0500
Michael Hudson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, John R Sheets wrote:
> > Michael Hudson wrote:
> > Got any ideas for an alternative? Perhaps a C++ extension to
> > whichever GTK+ configurable error reporting scheme (yet to be
> > implemented), that doesn't use real exception handling (i.e. a
> > hack)? Is there any hope for being able to use exception
> > handling in GTK--?
>
> So long as you delay the thrown excpetion until you're back in GTK-- land
> you should be safe, but that's going to be hard, I should think.
> Perhaps an error handler that set some appropriate static flag variable,
> then when gtk returns normally, gtk-- would translate that into an
> exception. Don't know if that would be feasible. (Don't mention threads).
That's kind of what I was thinking...if the GTK+ function chokes,
it sets a flag or calls some error signal callback, then dies.
The C++ wrapper acknowledges the error and throws an exception or
pursues some alternate tactic (e.g. I dunno...maybe it changes a
property and tries the same operation again.).
The problem with this is that every time you access a GTK+
function, you have to check the error flag. This kinda runs
counter to the intent of exceptions being more passive, more
event-driven. The longjmp may be a performance hit, but even
more so will be this constant error polling.
Kind of a sticky situation. No easy answers.
John
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]