Re: Binding convention for poorly named functions

[James Curbo <james teyandei net>]

muppet wrote:
> fine, we've released functions as methods, so it would be incongruous to start
> adding functions.
>
> that doesn't mean we can't make poorly-named functions be class static
> methods, in the namespace of the adding library, not the target "object". 
> this will give you the consistent method syntax while avoiding the possibility
> of namespace clashes.

I think you have your answer right there, especially given the below:

>   # as a static method (consistent with how we've done things in the past)
>   Some::Naughty->function (other_object)
>
>
> For the Gnome2/Gtk2 menu->attach problem from a short while back, you'd have
>
>   gnome_popup_menu_attach (gtkmenu, ...)
>   Gnome2::PopupMenu->attach ($gtkmenu, ...)

I concur that it does suck to be stuck with this until Gtk3, but it 
seems you've dug your own hole, especially since we have signed on to 
the GNOME Language Bindings deal and are in the midst of a major freeze 
for GNOME 2.6.

Perhaps you could make the change just before the GNOME 2.8 release (or 
GTK 2.6 release), as most developers will be making updates to their 
programs during these times anyway. (I'm certain a whole HOST of 
applications will jump on the GtkFileChooser bandwagon as soon as GTK 
2.4 comes out) This is what branches are for anyway, right?

James