Re: GLib/GObject/Pango structure review

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:

> >   GMemVTable
> 
> this will definitely not change as long as we're source
> compatible. we've had enough discussions on whether to extend
> this or not, and in the end went with the least common denominator
> that is decently usable.
> 
> >   GScannerConfig
> 
> this is probably only to gain more flags in the future, so
> adding another guint will allow for plenty of flags to be added.

We _can't_ pad structures like this, or like most other ones
listed in my mail, because we have no way of knowing what
fields in the field are value, so we'd have to introduce a
requirement for zero intialization of the padding, which is
a seriously incompatible API change.

My mail was mostly for reference purposes.

Regards,
                                        Owen