Re: defs spec

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On 5 Jul 2001, Soeren Sandmann wrote:

> James Henstridge <james daa com au> writes:
>
> > It has been a while since posting the last draft of the spec.  I have
> > integrated the last lot of suggested changes and put the new version up
> > at:
> >   http://www.gnome.org/~james/defs-format.html
>
> Shouldn't the spec say which methods are virtual and which are not, or
> are all methods virtual?  Also, I couldn't find anywhere what "access"
> is for fields, methods and signals.

methods defined with (define-method ...) are just C functions that take a
particular structure as their first argument.  If there is any
virtualisation for a particular function, it is done within gtk, so not
relevant to the definitions. (remember that this is a spec for describing
C interfaces that resemble gtk's API).

>
> > If possible, I would like to see the defs format finalised soon.  There
> > are still a few things I am not sure about though (marked with XXXX in the
> > document).  If anyone has any ideas about how to fill those holes, please
> > post them.  Alternatively, we can just comment them out and call it final.
>
>       The abstract parameter is used to declare whether the class is
>       abstract or not. (XXX - could we get rid of this parameter and
>       just say that types without constructors are abstract?).
>
> A problem with getting rid of it is that someone might forget to
> include the constructor for a rarely used type.  In that case, all
> language bindings will silently declare that type abstract.

Non abstract classes without constructors would correspond to objects that
can only be instantiated with g_object_new().  Is there any objects that
fall into this category in gtk+?  How about gnome?

I don't think I would need this bit of information in pygtk.  Is there any
other language bindings where it would be useful?

James.

-- 
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/