Re: GtkLabel patch

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> first, worrying about slowness in debugging enabled code
> is not a valid argument, by that reasoning we'd have to take
> a huge portion of our checks out which defeats the purpose
> _debugging_ checks (in case you wonder, take a look at
> g_signal_emitv() how it checks all passed in arguments when
> debugging is enabled).

This is totally bogus, because we ship the tarball with the typechecks
turned on by default, and all the major Linux distributions also ship
GTK with the checks turned on.

If you are going to make this argument, we have to actually turn them
off. And then most developers wouldn't ever rebuild GTK and wouldn't
benefit from the checks.

> second, i personally have run into it, and i've seen buggy
> user code that would have triggered warnings from the above
> checks, if they were just consistenly used. a common way to
> run into them is creation of new widgets or changing the
> ancestor of a widget. suddenly you might poke around in
> a parent class that isn't actually your parent anymore.

We can agree to disagree there I guess, doesn't seem worth it to me.

Havoc