Re: GtkImage changes

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 29 Jun 2000, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:

> > and then you can't access internals from derived widgets.
> 
> But at least you don't have to break binary compatibility every time you
> try to change the implementation of a stupid widget/object/whatever.

i don't have to, maybe you have, but that's your problem then.
(maybe you haven't heared of gtk_object_set_data() yet)

> And anyway, I have never seen a case in which not allowing access to the
> private fields caused problems at all. Instead, there have been a ton of
> cases where we needed to add fields to fix the implementation or to add
> functionality and we simply couldn't because of this (broken) setup.

then you didn't follow gtk development very closely, there have been
a bunch of cases were derivation wasn't possible untill enough
widget fields were accessible.

> But in GTK+ land, breaking binary/API compatibility all the time seems
> to be considered a healthy thing so whatever.

i don't know what point you're trying to make here, we've always maintained
binary compatibility throughout stable releases. if you refer to development
versions, don't whine if you go bleeding edge.

> 
> > btw, if you really need to make fields opaque, what's wrong
> > with:
> 
> This is indeed better and it's what I actually use for my stuff.
> 
> -- 
> Ettore.
> 
> 

---
ciaoTJ