Re: G_PARAM_STATIC_*

[Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

Hi Tim,

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418021

I can commit if thats okay.

Stefan

Tim Janik wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Stefan Kost wrote:
> 
>> hi,
>>
>> I just found G_PARAM_STATIC_NAME, G_PARAM_STATIC_NICK,
>> G_PARAM_STATIC_BLURB
>> flags. Does it mean that if I do:
>>
>> g_param_spec_string("name", "name prop", "name for blabla",
>>  NULL, G_PARAM_READWRITE);
>>
>> I can apply them to save a g_strdup? If so wouldn't it make send to have:
> 
> yes, it has some hidden pitfalls though, e.g. you couldn't do the above
> in a dynamic module which is possibly unloaded at some point.
> 
>> #define    G_PARAM_STATIC_DETAIL \
>>  (G_PARAM_STATIC_NAME|G_PARAM_STATIC_NICK|G_PARAM_STATIC_BLURB)
> 
> i don't like "DETAIL" in particular (already using that for a different
> param
> spec extension in another library).
> G_PARAM_STATIC_STRINGS could work though (and *possibly* be extended in
> the future).
> 
>> And finally G_PARAM_STATIC_NICK is not documented. I can send a patch.
> 
> please do.
> 
>> Stefan
> 
> ---
> ciaoTJ