Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>Martin Nilsson (Coppermist) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>>Looks fine to me.
>Ah. Well, it appears to work in the compilation tree.
>But once you do "make install", the installation crashes at 42.3% and shows
>something like this:
Nevermind. Somehow the so
Lance Dillon wrote:
>So my destructor for an object should be called _destruct(), and not
>destroy()??? What version did that change???
That will be in Pike 8.1 (and actually ended up in there about two months ago,
I guess); so only relevant if you program for 8.1 as well.
--
Stephen.
So my destructor for an object should be called _destruct(), and not destroy()?Â
What version did that change?Â
On Friday, December 22, 2017, 10:34:46 AM EST, Lance Dillon
wrote:
And with all the pike objects being referenced in the gtk2 object (and
reverse), even if all the oth
And with all the pike objects being referenced in the gtk2 object (and
reverse), even if all the other objects are destroyed, if a pike object isn't,
that is with gtk2, and that gtk2 object is a child in container, all it's
parents will stay around too.
On Friday, December 22, 2017, 10:22
Chris Angelico wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Henrik Grubbstr??m (Lysator) @ Pike
>> Using _destruct() for this kind of stuff is NOT a good idea as it gets
>> called in a signal context.
>Hmm. But there needs to be _something_ to cope with object
>abandonment, otherwise a long-running pr
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
(-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
>>(-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>> Note that AFAIK destruct() in some G
>On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
>(-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>> Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function
>> (and thus part of the API).
>
>Do you mean destroy? It got renamed in the big _destruct rename
I actually prefer destroy because it makes more sense grammatically, to go
along with create.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: On
Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
(-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.l
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
(-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function
> (and thus part of the API).
Do you mean destroy? It got renamed in the big _destruct rename, and
Note that AFAIK destruct() in some GTK2 classes is a public function
(and thus part of the API).
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>before calling gtk_object_destroy. Any idea why? Is there a situation
>>in which destroy() might have been called with arguments, such that it
>>shouldn't actually destroy anything?
>
> I can only guess, but
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>Martin Nilsson (Coppermist) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>>I think the question is if we should assume that the platforms will be
>>fixed, if we should write a workaround for those platforms, or if we
>>should drop support for those platforms. I don't think dro
Chris Angelico wrote:
>before calling gtk_object_destroy. Any idea why? Is there a situation
>in which destroy() might have been called with arguments, such that it
>shouldn't actually destroy anything?
I can only guess, but maybe it was being called explictly from some
places in the code with a d
I doubt anyone will know the answer to this, as it's in 12+ year old
code in the GTK2 module, but the destroy method (now renamed to
_destruct) was explicitly checking that it received exactly zero args
before calling gtk_object_destroy. Any idea why? Is there a situation
in which destroy() might h
Martin Nilsson (Coppermist) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>Looks fine to me.
Ah. Well, it appears to work in the compilation tree.
But once you do "make install", the installation crashes at 42.3% and shows
something like this:
Installing Pike in /usr/local/pike/8.1.11, please wait...
Martin Nilsson (Coppermist) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>I think the question is if we should assume that the platforms will be
>fixed, if we should write a workaround for those platforms, or if we
>should drop support for those platforms. I don't think dropping the
The only sane workaround
16 matches
Mail list logo
