Re: #107397 (Re: type_info macro generation ...)
- From: Tim Janik <timj gtk org>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>, Gtk Hackers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: #107397 (Re: type_info macro generation ...)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:40:00 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Following up here for completeness...
how's "for completeness" meant, you still advocate for
the changes below, despite the recent gtk release, right?
> On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 21:47, Tim Janik wrote:
> > > I don't think the macro should take a non-prefixed name like
> > > parent_class. If you want the magic parent_class setup, then
> > > I think it should be prefixed like 'gtk_entry_parent_class'
> > there's a detailed comment describing exactly what the
> > macros define, and i believe matthias is just turning that
> > into real docs, so if in doubt, the behaviour isn't all that
> > magic to the user.
> > as for prefixing parent_class like gtk_entry_parent_class, you
> > don't provide a rationale for that, and in a previous email
> > to jody i pointed out that that's counterproductive for 89% of
> > current parent_class u
> The reasons for prefixing are:
> A) Defining multiple classes in one file just works. We get
> rid of an arbitrary "G_DEFINE_TYPE() can be used only
> once for source code file restriction.
> B) As a general rule, I don't think that if we have macros
> to define stuff, they should define stuff in the
> unprefixed namespace. E.g., your macro doesn't just define
> 'class_init' and 'init()'
> The fact that 89% of the current parent_class uses use just
> 'parent_class' simply means that GTK+ started off doing things
> that way and people copied. It adds only a few seconds to
> the conversion of something to G_DEFINE_TYPE to rename the
> parent_class variable.
ok, i admit, i have to agree on (B). come to think of it, it
doesn't make much sense to type prefix class_init and init
and parent_class not, except for the status quo.
you and jody seem to not really worry about those 89%, so i'll
go ahead and indeed make that change.
] [Thread Prev