Re: g_strcmp0

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:38:13PM +0200, Milosz Derezynski wrote:
> Well, to be honest, the g_ stuff serves as an abstraction layer; I don't
> think that currently there is any problem with using the plain C type
> instead of the g_ type in this (or other) functions, but for consistency's
> sake and for the case that this typedef will become more complex depending
> on other platforms supported in the future I would consider this a minor bug
> and opt to get it fixed.

I am not against changing the function prototype.  However, the
reasoning that the typedef can change is bogus.  The type is equivalent
to the C type and has been always specified so:

    Types which correspond exactly to standard C types, but are included
    for completeness - gchar, gint, gshort, glong, gfloat, gdouble.

A typedef to something else would be a major API breakage.


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