Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 17:49 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> > This abstraction would ensure that there is no confusion at the GType
> > level, if we start substituting types at the GType level then types
> > will inevidably be substituted underneath unsuspecting code, that
> > doesnt sound safe to me at all,
> we will not do that. never ever. i've adressed that in another
> email already:
> i.e. we guarantee that:
>    G_TYPE_FROM_INSTANCE (g_object_new (TYPE_FOO, NULL)) == TYPE_FOO.
> holds, you may assert that in your code. we will not break that guarantee.
> let me use your words: we will not substitute types at the GType level.

I see, thank you very much for your patience in describing this, 
for my concerns:
  a.) G_TYPE_FROM_INSTANCE(g_object_new(TYPE_FOO)/foo_new()) == TYPE_FOO
  b.) IS_FOO (g_factory_create (TYPE_FOO))

Knowing that the above assertions hold, completely settles my concern.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]