Re: The new GTask name in GIO is wrong

[Matthew Brush <mbrush codebrainz ca>]

On 12-11-02 07:46 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi;
>
> On 2 November 2012 14:15, Tal Hadad <tal_hd hotmail com> wrote:
> > First, there were an old project called GTask[0], which tried to give
> > parallelism ability and
> > alternative to today GIO async(I think it wasn't exist back than).
>
> this is inconsequential: GTask was abusing the G* namespace, which is
> reserved for GLib, GObject, and GIO. also, GTask has been
> re-implemented/renamed to Iris[0].

Hi,

I've seen this sentiment a few times now, and I totally understand the 
logic behind it, but if there's concern about clashing, wouldn't it have 
made more sense to prefix with glib_ (or gio_, gobject_, etc) like gtk_ 
does?

I just wonder what will happen one day if GNU decides to partner with 
Google to release a GMail library for the Go language and they later 
want to add GObject bindings :)

Additionally, if the "reservation" of this prefix isn't clearly 
outlined[1] in the documentation to developers using the G*-stack, is it 
fair to use strong words like "inconsequential" and "abusing" when they 
do it[2]? Maybe the docs[3] could be updated to recommend using the Q* 
namespace, I'm pretty sure no one is using that :)

P.S. In case the smileys didn't give it away I'm mostly being facetious.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush

[1] I'm assuming it's not since I've read a lot of G*-stack 
documentation and tutorials and don't remember seeing. Apologies in 
advance if I've missed it.

[2] I've admittedly done it myself when making GObject-based bindings 
for various libraries.

[3] This would be one good place:
http://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gtype-conventions.html