Re: pre-summit introspection status

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org> wrote:
> Note that I did not suggest that.  What I requested was using code, not
> comment, annotations, such that people can write static analyzers using
> existing frontends.  What the introspection framework continues to use is none
> of my business.

For what it's worth this came up during discussion at the summit., and
there didn't seem to be a lot of appetite for GCC attribute-like
annotations.  Certainly trying to rebase the parser would set us back
a while.  If we knew of GNOME projects currently using a free and
programmable static analyzer, the balance might change but for now I
think the current path makes sense.

One area I can think of where a static analyzer would be nice is for
autodetecting the (allow-none) attribute based on the presence of
g_return_if_fail (foo != NULL); in the source code.  But as it stands
now we have a lot of (allow-none) imported from the pygtk .defs.

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