Re: [Vala] Gtk.TextBuffer text/set_text

[Geert Jan <gj_alsem yahoo com>]

Hi everybody,

Sorry for replying to my own mail, but I feel that in my previous message I was a bit unclear and impersonal, 
resulting in no replies. So I'd like to summarize my question here:

The fact that Vala for Gtk.TextBuffer accepts:

  my_text_buffer.text = "foo";

...is probably a bug, since gcc doesn't compile the resulting C code. But what kind of bug is this? Should 
the text property of Gtk.TextBuffer just be private?

And as a follow up question I wondered why there was chosen to give the user the choice between using the = 
operator and the set_something() method, because at first it confused me a little as it made me wonder if 
there was a difference.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on the matter. I'm getting to know Vala pretty well, so I think soon 
I'll be able to help out by fixing bugs myself, instead of just pestering others. :)

Sincerely,
Geert Jan Alsem


--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Geert Jan <gj_alsem yahoo com> wrote:

> From: Geert Jan <gj_alsem yahoo com>
> Subject: [Vala] Gtk.TextBuffer text/set_text
> To: vala-list gnome org
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 9:33 AM
> Gtk.TextBuffer has a property:
>
>     public weak string text { set; get; }
>
> This should mean you can either use:
>
>     my_text_buffer.text = "foo";
>
> Or:
>
>     my_text_buffer.set_text ("foo");
>
> Right? However, the set_text() method in this case is
> different:
>
>     public void set_text (string text, int len)
>
> So, this works:
>
>     my_text_buffer.set_text ("foo", 3);
>
> But this doesn't:
>
>     my_text_buffer.text = "foo";
>
> The problem is, valac compiles that last line, but gcc
> gives an error saying gtk_text_buffer_set_text() isn't
> getting enough arguments. So I'm guessing this
> constitutes as a bug in Vala.
>
> BTW, I would have just submitted a bug report on bugzilla,
> but the whole philosophy behind the { set; get; } way of
> working is still a bit unclear to me. Is it meant to be
> double, as in: you can always use both "object.x =
> something" and "object.set_x(something)"? Why
> wasn't there chosen for one way? Maybe I'm just
> fussing too hard over this, but I keep wondering which is
> the preferred way of the two.
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> Vala-list mailing list
> Vala-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list