Re: gdkcursors.h

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

"Matthias Clasen" <matthiasc poet de> writes:

> Is there a reason to definition the GdkCursorType enumeration in the way it
> is
> done currently, by including gdkcursors.h inside the enumeration ?

Well, it's done for the sake of the X-derived-headers rule in
gdk/Makefile.am, but since:

 * I doubt the set of X cursor defines will _ever_ change.
 * If it did, we wouldn't want that to imply a change in the
   GDK API accidentally. (We have a problem in gdkkeysyms.h
   in that a bunch of non-standard XFree86 only keysyms 
   snuck in at some point during the 1.3.x series.)

I'm OK with just putting them into gdkcursor.h and deleting
the corresponding rule from the Makefile.
 
> gtk-doc doesn't grok this, and consequently, my effort on
> documenting the standard cursors doesn't show up in the api docs.

Yeah, I had to back out the changes here before releasing
1.3.11 to get things to compile properly. Should be easy to
restore once things are working properly.

Regrads,
                                        Owen