Re: python / tinymail.Account.set_pass_func
- From: Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- To: Mark Doffman <mark doffman codethink co uk>
- Cc: tinymail-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: python / tinymail.Account.set_pass_func
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:29:11 +0200
Note that at some point I want to migrate to the style that GIO uses for
asynchronous APIs. I don't think this is done using closures either.
And given that GIO is in glib, I think that methodology will sooner or
later become a standard for asynchronous apis in glib.
Which means that binding tools will probably automatically cope with it
too.
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 13:26 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:18 +0100, Mark Doffman wrote:
>
> > Ideally all callback functions in the tinymail interface would use
> > GClosures, as this would be trivial to bind to. Failing that
> > providing
> > user data associated with each callback would make binding by hand
> > possible.
>
> I wouldn't be against a tny-closures.h and tny-closures.c that wraps all
> callback APIs into ones that are done with closures.
>
>
--
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]