Re: gparamspecs.c param_double_validate() doesn't support NaN/Inf?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Michael Natterer <mitch gimp org> wrote:
>> Should I patch GParamSpecDouble to have two :1 fields for 'allow_nan',
>> 'allow_inf' and make param_double_validate do the correct thing with
>> isnan()/isinf()?
> I think you have a very good point here and that use case is entirely
> reasonable.
> Would you please file this as enhancement request against GObject?
> An attached patch that follows the coding style nicely plus some
> code to test the feature in gobject/tests will increase the
> probability of this becoming committed significantly ;)

Well, it brings up a few issues.. If someone defined a param spec with
a minimum/maximum value, Nan/Inf/-Inf are separate values that were
previously disallowed by the current code. So in my mind, making every
double param suddenly accept these values is a bit awkward. I'm not
sure how easily GParamSpecDouble can be changed to add new fields so
that params can specify whether they want to accept nan/inf
explicitly. That part was more of a RFC.. making the patch is easy but
I'm not sure what is an acceptable change.


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