Re: GSeal bugs in GtkAccelLabel hampering flexibility

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2 cam ac uk>]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 09:59 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Peter Clifton wrote:
> 
> > The way GTK seems to have worked (from my past experience), is I /
> > others write patches, then they sit in Bugzilla and get ignored. I won't
> > pollute this reply with the list of examples, but I can think of
> > several. (Ok - only one patch was mine).
> 
> Peter, I understand your frustration, but I don't see how attacking GTK+
> maintainers helps.  SO yeah, GTK+ has two part-time maintainers.  What do you
> expect them to do?  Qt has a team of 100 behind it.  Does that make Qt more
> responsive to bug reports?  Go try...

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack the GTK maintainers in general, I was
just cross that the first reply I got was basically "patches welcome". I
should learn to move away from my computer when I'm in a bad mood about
something ;)

> If you want a workaround for now, just access the member as
> GSEAL(member_name).  I told them the GSEAL macro should use __line__, they
> didn't listen :P.

Ok - didn't know I could do that. I had presumed the sealed members we
not available for prodding outside GTK's codebase.

(BTW.. what would __line__ do exactly?)

If this lets me work around the problem, perhaps I can help prepare a
more complete fix for GTK 3.0, whilst not being stuck in limbo waiting
for users to move onto some as-yet unreleased GTK version. I'm not event
sure whether all the fixes can even be made without breaking ABI. (GTK
3.0 will break ABI right?)

I presume accessing members with GSEAL(member_name) carries a big
"Caveat Emptor", that you're now relying on implementation details.


Thanks Behdad,

I know I didn't deserve a helpful reply when I was being a grumpy git,
but you provided one anyway.


Best wishes,

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)