Re: GtkBuilderConnectFunc and <signal> tag
- From: Johan Dahlin <johan gnome org>
- To: Tim Janik <timj gtk org>
- Cc: Christian Persch <chpe gnome org>, Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: GtkBuilderConnectFunc and <signal> tag
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:02:46 -0300
Tim Janik wrote:
>> Would that be enough?
> why? what is the type specification good for if it's not an object?
> and, didn't an earlier variant of your code match object="button"
> to some "button" object from the builder file? so then, the straight
> forward mapping of the GSignal API would be:
> <signal name="signalname" handler="callbackname" // mandatory
> after="bool" // optional
> swapped="bool" // optional
> user_data="0x42" object="objectname" // optionally have either of
> these but not both
> i'd say anything other than
> "after" indicating G_CONNECT_AFTER,
> "swapped" indicating G_CONNECT_SWAPPED,
> "object" indicating g_signal_connect_object,
> would be misleading and likely confuse people
> who also know the C API.
> especially so, since g_object_connect() already establishes
> a mapping between strings and AFTER/SWAPPED/connect_object,
> which is exactly the one i listed above.
I also realized that after trying to implement user_type/user_data and I
agree that haveing after, swapped and object tags is a much better mapping
to what you can do using signal connection mechanism.
The only use case it doesn't cover is a way to send in a string or an
integer (with GPOINTER_TO_INT), as Morten mentioned in this thread.
] [Thread Prev