Re: Interface signals.

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes: 
> probably nothing wrong with that, but interfaces as we currently have them
> in glib are more modeled after C++ signatures than Java interfacesm and as
> such you can't override interfaces of parent types either.

I hadn't realized that. This also precludes the proxy-function
approach to wrapping used in C++ bindings.

> you're forgetting one of the cons though, that is that for every branch
> an interface is being introduced, it's class structure gets duplicated per
> type node contained in branch (downwards on from the node the interface is
> being introduced for).
> 

Not forgetting it, I had assumed we were already incurring that
overhead.

Havoc