Re: glib object orientation

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Eduardo Pérez Ureta wrote:

> On 2001-08-11 01:22:34 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Eduardo Pérez Ureta <eperez dei inf uc3m es> writes:
> > 
> > > Why do you name (and other people) functions like:
> > > g_nullify_pointer()
> > > instead the OO naming:
> > > g_pointer_nullify()
> > 
> > hmm, everyone agreed on this one since noone objected.
> >  
> > > glib is supposed to be as OO as possible including its namespace, isn't it ?
> > 
> > I don't think this holds true for pure glib. But please move this
> > discussion on the gtk-devel list...
> 
> As Sven stated, What's the current policy for the namespace of glib ?

i think this is just unworthy nit-picking. we don't really have
a "pointer" object, and we're highly unlikely to add more gpointer
functions. this function pretty much exists for convenience only and
is supposed to be easy to find/guessable, a couple people suggested
this name intuitively (at least sven and me did), so it looks like
the best name to pick for it.

---
ciaoTJ