Re: Introspection API
- From: Andreas Rottmann <a rottmann gmx at>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>, gtk-devel-list gnome org, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com>, language-bindings gnome org
- Subject: Re: Introspection API
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:59:33 +0100
Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 17:38 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
>> At the same time, C header files are missing a lot of the information
>> you'd want to include in the metadata. You'll either end up with a lot
>> of ugly comments in the header (for an extreme case, look at something
>> like librpm's headers ...), or have the information separate from the
>> definitions (which can result on them becoming out of date).
> I think magic comments are the way to go. The way to minimize them is to
> follow the conventions. If an API is "normal" then all the defaults
> should be right -> no magic comments. Right?
I don't know what you consider "normal", but a lot of functions could
use default arguments, and those must be encoded in magic comments,
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty ICQ | 118634484 ICQ | a rottmann gmx at
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
] [Thread Prev