Re: Widget descriptors as unions

[Jean-Marie Delapierre <jean-marie delapierre 9online fr>]

Le 29/08/2015 11:08, Florian Pelz a écrit :
> On 08/29/2015 10:53 AM, LRN wrote:
> > On 29.08.2015 11:46, Florian Pelz wrote:
> > > On 08/29/2015 10:39 AM, Jean-Marie Delapierre wrote:
> > > > I have explained (I hope in a clear way, but I begin to doubt about it)
> > > > that the unions I suggest only own pointers, not child objects as you
> > > > say in your answer.
> > > I think it is clear, but you still need to declare one such union for
> > > each class.
> > Union-pointers sound like a neat trick.
> >
> > Can't you generate headers with these union-pointer declarations
> > automatically, using gobject introspection?
> I don't like requiring an additional tool for building. It also makes
> the inner workings less transparent than using only the C high-level
> assembler with macros. I don't think you can do the declaration
> conveniently without additional tools, i.e. just a C preprocessor and
> compiler.
>
> > I'm also not sure what are the ABI implications. Are unions compile-time
> > only? I guess you'd only change a pointer-union if the class hierarchy of
> > its corresponding widget class changes, which sounds like a good excuse to
> > recompile anyway...
> ABI-wise, unions don't make a difference. But: If you use a library that
> uses a class that inherits from a GTK class and the GTK class starts
> implementing a new interface, you'd need to recompile the library's
> header files.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-list mailing list
> gtk-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
Hi,

To Florian Pelz : I apologize for the aggresseness included in my 
previous answer.

I have understood the issue of being on the wrong list and I will take 
care of it.

In the example I have posted in May, I have defined specialized header 
files for any GTK+ object I use in my program, but it's certainly not 
what I suggest to do in the future.

What I hope if the advantage of detecting more bugs at compilation time 
is agreed by the GTK+ community is that the union type declarations 
would be just included in the standard header files, allowing the 
programmers to use any coding style they want.

Regards

Jean-Marie