Peter and I are not on one side, and the whole wx community on the
other here as you suggest.

I am suggesting that I can provide a patch for a specific problem -
that is a crash caused when destroy takes place on a window which has
an active event handler.  The negativity I experienced was "you can't
fix it, and even if you can we won't accept it".  Which I found rather
frustrating, as I was not saying "this is broke you need to fix it"
but "this is broke and I will try to fix it".  If my company wasn't so
reliant on wx then at that point I would have been tempted to walk
away at that point.

My 'excuse, not a solution' comment was in response to your assertion
that Destroy may crash, that's obvious because it's a C++ extension
and C++ crashes some times, and it seemed to me that you were
advocating that it was ok for it to crash.  When I was actively trying
to find a solution to prevent that crash.

On the other hand, Peter is suggesting that the entire model of
handling memory management is wrong in wx. I actually think he is
probably right, but I think that he is wrong that it can be fixed
easily in the swig layer.  To fix that would require some major
modifications to the whole wx model and I think it would be extremely
difficult to do, though I do hope to try one day if no-one else does.

It is however good to hear that you have changed your mind and will
consider accepting a patch.