Re: RFC: renaming libgobject

[Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Thu, 31 May 2001, Eric Lemings wrote:

> Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > And it got worse from there. If you have better ideas, or
> > good reasons to keep the library libgobject, let us know.
> > Otherwise, I'll make the change in a few days.
>
> I think GObject is just fine: it reinforces the fact that the library
> serves as the object-oriented framework.  But that's not all it used
> for.  It's used for just about every possible type: abstract types,
> generic types, boxed types, interface types, member (ParamSpec) types,
> and of course class types.
>
> So the name GType might also be appropriate.

Except GType is also a type in the library, so it suffers from all the
problems GObject has. And it also doesn't convey the fact that it does far
more than give you types, like signals, properties, closures, mainloop
(possibly), etc.

/ Alex