Re: GVariant for prez!

Ryan Lortie wrote:
> Dan Winship wrote:
>> (Alternate possibility: add a way to include type tags, so that callers
>> and callees can agree that a particular "x" is to be treated as a time_t
>> and not a generic int64. Eg, a signature of ":x" would mean a (string)
>> type tag followed by an int64, but it would be distinct from "sx" or
>> "(sx)".)
> Are you proposing that this would be a standard modification to DBus
> itself?

No, that would be better than what I was suggesting. I was just
suggesting that either (a) GVariant should be renamed to make it clear
that it's D-Bus-specific, not a generic type system, or else (b) it
should be extended to make it *not* D-Bus-specific. (Although I guess
we'd at least want to ensure that whatever extension syntax it used
would not conflict with anything in D-Bus in the future.)

-- Dan

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