Re: (inout) (transfer full) annotations for container types

From: Philip Withnall <philip tecnocode co uk>
To: Simon Feltman <s feltman gmail com>
Cc: gir-devel-list gnome org, Sergio Mariotti <sergio mariotti it gmail com>
Subject: Re: (inout) (transfer full) annotations for container types
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:28:50 +0000

On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 23:52 -0800, Simon Feltman wrote:

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Philip Withnall <philip tecnocode co uk> wrote:

If there is no convention, I suggest it makes more sense to have the
caller only ever call g_array_unref(), g_ptr_array_unref(),
g_hash_table_unref(), and never explicitly free the elements. For
(transfer full), the callee should be responsible for setting the
clear/free function for elements. For (transfer container), the callee
should be responsible for *not* setting such a function (or for adding
the elements to a newly allocated container with no free function set,
or similar).


For what it's worth, this interpretation makes a lot of sense to me.


How does pygobject currently interpret things? I tried following the
code but didn’t have enough time to make sense of it.

Philip

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

References:
- Re: (inout) (transfer full) annotations for container types
  - From: Simon Feltman

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]