Re: one-shot interface initializers

[Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:

> i'd apprechiate comments from especially jrb and bill, as i
> remember both expressing concern about the current need for
> a base_counter type hack for creating signals of interfaces.

For my needs (simply an interface with signals) either solution is
sufficient.  Your change doesn't feel any more or less hacky to me.
That is, the loss of a need for a base_counter is offset by the
different behavior in the initialization order, and the dummy class
argument.

*shrug*  Your call (-;

Thanks,
-Jonathan