Re: Adding g_object_get_type?

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Darin Adler wrote:

> on 11/10/01 9:17 AM, Tim Janik at timj gtk org wrote:
> 
> > i don't know what passing you're exactly talking about, but what about:
> > C-Type: GtkObject
> > Type:   GTK_TYPE_OBJECT
> > 
> > and forget about *_get_type() variants that are not always present?
> 
> I think it's a waste of time to belabor this point on the list, because I
> know it's not going to lead to any change to gtk, but just FYI. Here are the
> four parameters used for this one macro:
> 
>     MyClass, my_class,
>     GtkObject, GTK_TYPE_OBJECT
> 
> It would be *way* more elegant to have:
> 
>     MyClass, my_class,
>     GtkObject, gtk_object
> 
> But anyway, lets not waste any more time on this. I thought you guys might
> be receptive to adding a few trivial *_get_type functions to make the thing
> slightly more orthogonal. If not, there's no need to waste a lot of time
> discussing it.

this looks fairly redundant. i still don't know what you're using
this macro for, but if you can use a code generator, we already have
routines that can generate all of GTK_FOO_XBAR/GTK_TYPE_FOO_XBAR,
gtk_foo_xbar/gtk_foo_xbar_get_type, etc. from giving just the capitalized
version GtkFooXBar.
e.g. in perl: glib-mkenums, the rules for generating $enumshort and friends,
or in C: beast/bsw/mkapi.c the function tmacro_from_type() and friends.

> 
>     -- Darin
> 

---
ciaoTJ