Re: Fourth draft of defs file format

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes: 
> let this default to true, many functions may return NULL, and defaulting
> to false here is dangerous for wrong .defs files (which can easily happen,
> e.g. when the semantics of a function change) when bindings don't
> check the return value for NULL because of this.
> 

Done.

> actually i even think assuring that a function will always return a
> result != NULL is dangerous in the first place, there are a lot
> of functions that should never return NULL, given valid function
> arguments, but the return_val_if_fail statements still default to NULL.
>

I think language binding authors should make the decision on whether
to be "safe" or "correct" here.
  
> i mentioned this already, please call this "nick" to follow gtk terminology,
> what you call "c-name" here is the actuall name of the value and shouldn't
> be supperessed by language bindings.
>

Done.

Havoc