Re: Gtk+ 3.0 and gtkmm-3.0

[Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>]

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 11:42 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 11:24 +0200, Germán Diago wrote:
> > 
> > 3.- It's VERY difficult to introspect signals, slots and in gtkmm,
> > because they use libsigc++. And they can only
> > be bound at compile time. Don't get me wrong. libsigc++ is great, but
> > it's very difficult to make
> > an editor in which you can bind signals and slots with drag and drop.
> > I think signals should be rethought
> > so that they cover that so frequent use case. This would let people
> > (like me) to write an IDE with these features.
> > 
> > I know that introspection for gobject is being implemented. Maybe with
> > this one we can get signals and slots introspection.
> > But I also would like to be able that, when I implement a signal or
> > slot in C++, this is automatically added (or the best
> > way that C++ can do this) to the gobject introspection. Because if we
> > don't do this, we don't have
> > all the features expected from the toolkit when we choose to use C++.
> 
> I can't imagine how this could be done, personally. C++ is not a very
> dynamic language.

murray, my guess at what the OP has in mind could be expressed like this
(very, very pseudo-code-y):

class Gtk::Signal : public sigc::signal
{
    public:
       ...
       std::string name() const { return _name; }
};

class Glibmm::Object
{
	....
	std::list<Gtk::Signal> signals;
};

does that make a little more sense (not that the actual technical
details are any easier to implement) ?

--p