Re: Put g_signal_connect() back!

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 8 Mar 2001 jrb redhat com wrote:

> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > On 8 Mar 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > >   Thu Mar  8 16:35:48 2001  Tim Janik  <timj gtk org>
> > > 
> > > 	* gsignal.[hc]: fixed accumulator invocation, implemented emission
> > > 	hooks. and no, neither of these callbacks are called via a closure,
> > > 	language bindings can wrap the accumulator and emission hook
> > > 	interface, they already get parameters marshalled into a GValue array.
> > > 	(g_signal_connect): removed this function as its C specific, doesn't
> > > 	cover the swapped argument, is too close to its broken original
> > > 	gtk_signal_connect() and creates demand for _swapped, _after and
> > > 	_swapped_after variants <brrr>.
> > > 	(g_signal_connectc): convenience macro to connect a C handler
> > > 	func with data, like the old g_signal_connect() plus swapped
> > > 	argument.
> > > 
> > >  - g_signal_connect() will probably be the common function call in 
> > >    GTK+ programs. It doesn't need an extra c, or an extra argument.
> > 
> > gtk_signal_connect_object() is used about as often as gtk_signal_connect()
> > if not even more frequently. the problem with gtk_signal_connect() in the
> > first place was that you require a bunch of function variants to get
> > full connection functionality, g_signal_connect_data() finally breaks with
> > that.
> 
> A quick LXR search shoes this assumption is very, very wrong.
> 
> There are 1450 instances of gtk_signal_connect_object, versus 17624
> instances of gtk_signal_connect.  Additionally, people moving to
> g_object based code will expect it to be there.

do i gave up trusting LXR over a year ago, make it index HEAD and
come back.
still i take your point that gtk_signal_connect() is prolly used
more, but the use gtk_signal_connect_object() is definitely not
insignificant.

> 
> Thanks,
> -Jonathan
> 

---
ciaoTJ