Re: gobject introspection
- From: "Michael Lawrence" <lawremi iastate edu>
- To: "Rob Taylor" <rob taylor codethink co uk>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gobject introspection
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:17:05 -0500
On 5/2/07, Rob Taylor <rob taylor codethink co uk> wrote:
Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:12 +0100, Rob Taylor wrote:
>> Michael Lawrence wrote:
>>> I made some suggestions along those lines a while ago on the GtkDocFuture
http://live.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/GtkDocFuture. It's at the
>>> bottom of the page.
> I'm not sure I like the idea of the gtk-doc comments containing extra
> tags for return values and arguments. It could get pretty messy.
>> Yeah, hmm, my take is that the introspection data should live in the
>> code, and gtk-doc should pick these up for the docs (just like signals
>> and object hierarchy).
Well, I think we both agree that there needs to be an API somewhere for storing the metadata in memory. I'm looking forward to your prototype. It would be great if the API were integrated with GClosure; that way language bindings could leverage existing marshaling code to support invoking methods introduced by the language.
I'll be able to tell more after hashing out my
>> prototype. One point I'm interested in from that POV: are there any
>> plans for gtk-doc to document signals/properties on interfaces? (e.g. by
>> instantiating objects pretending to implement them?)
> gtk-doc documents signals/properties on interfaces already.
Ah good! I had the impression it didn't ATM :)
] [Thread Prev