Re: Minutes of the GTK+ Team Meeting - 2008-09-23

[Michael Natterer <mitch gimp org>]

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:02 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Why not simply keep gtk_hbox_new and gtk_vbox_new?
> 
> I can see a number of reasons for doing so:
> 
> 1) They are used all over the place
> 2) The cost of maintaining them are next to zero
> 3) They make sense on their own,
>     gtk_hbox_new instead of gtk_box_new (HORIZONTAL, ...)
> 
> I think removing the classes but keep gtk_hbox_new/gtk_vbox_new that  
> simply creates a GtkBox with the correct orientation is the right  
> approach here.

I disagree. If we keep gtk_hbox_new() and gtk_vbox_new() around,
we can't change the packing defaults, which is a *huge* benefit
of introducing a new class with new API (GtkBox was abstract before,
so now allowing to instantiate it is in fact a new widget, and
that has to be reflected in *new* API to be able to change its
behavior).

Also, can we simply change the return value of functions?
(returning a GtkBox where we used to return GtkVBox and GtkHBox).

ciao,
--mitch