Re: [gnugo-devel] major `view.pike' revision

[Paul Pogonyshev]

Gunnar wrote:
> > First one question: there are lots of `static' modifiers across
> > the script and many of them seem to be out of place (like the
> > first: `static object engine').  As far as I know, `static' in
> > Pike is the same as in C, in the engine case this means that all
> > instances of `SimpleGtp' will share a single engine, which is
> > not what we want, right?
> 
> I assume you mean C++ rather than C. But no, static in Pike does not
> mean the same thing. It's closer to protected in C++. In this specific
> case it means that the engine variable can only be reached from
> methods in the class, not by direct indexing of an object. See
> http://pike.ida.liu.se/docs/tutorial/oop/access_control.xml
> for more information.

Indeed.  Well, OK, it seems Pike authors made a bad choise at one
point.  Since we will hardly have any subclasses, maybe we should
use `private' instead, to avoid confusion?  I used `private' in
many places in `twogtp.pike'.

> > I also fixed some bugs in the script.  For instance, some labels
> > were aligned incorrectly (one should have used `set_alignment'
> > instead of `set_justify').
> 
> That's great. I basically had no idea what I was doing when I wrote
> the GTK code, so it was mostly hit and miss in the manual.

Feel free to ask.  I'm more or less familiar with GTK+.

So, can I commit the patch to CVS?

Paul