[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[Vala] Lets talk about some easier stuff before this controversial one.
- From: Yu Feng <rainwoodman gmail com>
- To: Jürg Billeter <j bitron ch>
- Cc: vala-list <vala-list gnome org>
- Subject: [Vala] Lets talk about some easier stuff before this controversial one.
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:07:26 -0400
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 11:54 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 05:24 -0400, Yu Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 11:04 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > > > Another direction of this patch is to allow small wrapping code in
> > > > the .vapi declarations (which might ease the vapi authors's life)
> > >
> > > This is the only place where I might consider it useful. However, so far
> > > I'm not convinced that it really helps, see my other response.
> > >
> > intended for binding (again, using some asm wrap a call to int13) and I
> > began with .vala files because I thought they were easier to do
> > experiment with.
> >
> > Perhaps the binding authors can find more examples? in Samba and GST
> > bindings? If we put it to upstream people will eventually find use
> > cases. It should be rare.
> >
> > To pull the vala GList wrappers out I need to patch the <generic>
> > (valagenis?) to allow overriding with respect of generic. The patch is
> > already large and it is not wise to make it larger before positive
> > responses.
> >
> > How much can this vapi-only patch hurt vala in a long run?
>
> The patch is already getting quite big, and it seems that you've added a
> partial C parser in there.
That's what I was worrying about several month ago. The parser parses
identifiers and look for the formal parameters, the result, and "this".
I thought it was difficult but it turned out not much.
> Before I'm considering maintaining this, I'd
> need a strong use case, so far I haven't seen one that would justify it.
>
I am happy as long as I've made it possible. I understand your feelings
too. Therefore I won't be very unhappy if the patch was hung there.
Nevertheless we can try to separate useful stuff(if there is) from the
patch first.
See
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548969
If this works we can then remove
---
public override string get_default_cname () {
// return cname of wrapper method
if (cname == null) {
cname = "_dynamic_%s%d".printf (name, dynamic_method_id++);
}
return cname;
}
---
in valadynamicmethod.vala
and kill the replica wrappers.
> Jürg
>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]