Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?

[David Benson <daveb idealab com>]

In the end, I think having the GTK_OBJECT()-style
casts be equivalent to C-style casts but w/ additional
checks is rather nice.

In a widget system, these costs might be bearable,
but in a general purpose object system they are more
questionable.

For example, in my server I have some places I've
replaced the expensive casts to the native casts b/c
they are called very frequently (e.g. in the GSourceFuncs functions).

In the end, my experiences with MI have been so negative (each time
I've gotten rid of it before finishing) that I have little
interest in these benefits for these costs.

(Interfaces, on the other hand, don't require making the casts
non-equivalent.)


- Dave

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Karl Nelson wrote:

> 
> I have not heard back anything on my proposed object structure
> located at 
> 
>   http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~kenelson/private/gos.tar.gz
> 
> It is flexible enough that you can use it for multiple inheritance,
> inheritance of abstract interfaces, and multiple exportable interfaces. 
> It is very java like in construction with virtual inheritance only
> (not C++ like).  It demonstrates that only very simple tables are 
> necessary.
> 
> Just a reminder in case you have forgotten.
> 
> --Karl  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>          To unsubscribe: mail gtk-devel-list-request@redhat.com with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
>