|
It must be possible to build glibmm without access
to gtk+ or gtkmm. Gtkmm header files must not be included in
glibmm source code. In that respect glibmm must be independent of
gtkmm. In a weaker sense of the word, I think some dependence would be acceptable. E.g. gmmproc might handle a _WRAP_CHILD_PROPERTY macro, even if there are no child properties in glibmm. Something similar is done already. glibmm/tools/pm/WrapParser.pm handles _WRAP_CORBA_METHOD. A comment says that it's used in libbonobomm. (I don't know anything about it. I don't even know if it's still used.) M4 code specific to gtkmm should be no problem. Gtkmm already has its own m4 files, e.g. gtkmm/tools/m4/class_gtkobject.m4 for _CLASS_GTKOBJECT. I don't like that gmmproc uses both Python, Perl and M4. No one knows all three well. I dislike m4. It's a powerful text processor, but it's very different from any other programming language that I've used. I wouldn't mind if you write all new gmmproc code in Perl. But that's just my personal opinion. Kjell 2014-04-26 13:51, Juan
Rafael García Blanco skrev:
Hi, I’ve just started working on this. I think we would need to provide a similar API for child properties as for other properties, because I don’t think all GtkContainer (maybe not even one) expose child properties through regular methods. I see a major problem in doing this and I can’t find a valid approach that does not imply reimplementing a lot of things; maybe you could help me. The point is child properties are only available in Gtk+/gtkmm, while most of the infrastructure for generating code belongs to glibmm, and we don’t want to make glibmm depend on Gtk+ I think. First, we would need to make child properties appear in gtk_signals.defs or other .defs file. That could be done more or less easily creating an additional get_defs in gtkmm. Second, we would need to extend gmmproc to handle child properties. I see here a major problem. I’m not sure we could use the same _WRAP_PROPERTY / _PROPERTY_PROXY macros for child properties, i.e I don’t know if we could handle differences between gobject properties and child properties at pm level or at m4 level. What is your feeling about this? Third, we need to create a new PropertyProxy. I think this is the easiest; I’ve written some code for this on a local branch. Could you please comment on this? Thank you very much. Best regards, Juan. |