Re: [gtk-list] Re: Interfaces

Tim Janik <> writes:

> On 16 Apr 1999, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > Tim Janik <> writes:
> > 
> > > the interfaces are meant to follow much the c++ style of signatures,
> > 
> > I'm not quite sure of what you mean by this...
> take a look at the C++ Signatures:: node in your gcc info pages.

OK, found it. But that's a g++ extension, it's not C++.

> on the other hand, a bunch of the OO bindings already do things the
> right way, e.g. with Gtk-- you simply use this->set_group(), no
> matter whether this is a Gtk_RadioMenuItem or a Gtk_RadioButton

Yup. I guess I'm worrying too much, we probably won't need to wrap
this at all.

> (except that the current Gtk-- bindings don't dare to export
> set_group() for GtkRadioButton, just for GtkRadioManuItem).

Why "dare" ? :-)

Anyway, this is a hole in our API. Thanks for pointing it.

> > Really, you sure you're not taking this "let's do OO in C" thing a bit
> > too far ?
> this didn't steam out of the blue due to an intend to complexify Gtk+'s
> type system, but provides a reasonable solution for a bunch of problems
> we encountered because of lack of multiple inheritance.

I don't dispute the end, just the means. Then again, I guess there
aren't too many other acceptable ones.

> all of these could well be implemented through multiple inheritance,
> but i don't think any healthy minded programmer would like to see
> those implemented in Gtk+(+++).

Not sure of what you mean here either. What would Gtk++++ be ? A C++
version of Gtk+ ?


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