[resending since the original reply somehow got lost]
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:44 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
[snip]
> We should start to enforce the usage of single header includes and not
> make this optional. Mitch has been working
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:37 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, I don't *expect* it to happen - I mean, it's
> > completely feasible if the right person worked on it, but there's no
> > guarantee the right person will show up, so we can't count on that.
> > And even if someone hack
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 13:13 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> This allows for updating you application in two stages.
>
> 1. Stop using all deprecated widgets and update your application to use
> newer widgets or something else.
>
Yes but the problem still is there how long should this be deprecat
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you (and your team) are not working on it then we know that nobody is
> working on it, I guess. Thanks, that's actually useful information.
Definitely not working on it.
> Then there's also no need for extended-l
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:31 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really like the obvious sanity of your gtk-with-scene-graph idea, but
> > I do wonder when it's likely to happen.
> >
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don'
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really like the obvious sanity of your gtk-with-scene-graph idea, but
> I do wonder when it's likely to happen.
>
Don't get me wrong, I don't *expect* it to happen - I mean, it's
completely feasible if the right per
Am Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:43:54 +0200
schrieb Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 13:30 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> We should start to enforce the usage of single h
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 13:30 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> We should start to enforce the usage of single header includes and not
> >> make this optional. Mitch has been working on this and most i
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> We should start to enforce the usage of single header includes and not
>>> make this optional. Mitch has been working on th
Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
> [snip]
>> We should start to enforce the usage of single header includes and not
>> make this optional. Mitch has been working on this and most is already in
>> place in SVN trunk.
> [snip]
>
> What's the advant
Mikael Hermansson wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 18:22 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>
>> I think I agree with Muntyan here. Gtk+ 3.0 brings nothing exciting, so
>> why break API? It's just so pointless and painful for everyone. So
>> much effort done with memory profiling and now we'
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 23:07 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
[snip]
> 4) the "adequate/useful short-term canvas" has serious problems with
> defining its scope and purpose, which have been apparent in every
> thread about a canvas, and are apparent if you look at the different
> takes on canvases out
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:34 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
[snip]
> We should start to enforce the usage of single header includes and not
> make this optional. Mitch has been working on this and most is already in
> place in SVN trunk.
[snip]
What's the advantage of this? Has this been a real p
In my opinion..
The total amount of energy needed to maintain Gtk is X. X is
proportional to the size of the code base S. X is also proportional to
the age of the code A. The older it is, the more programmers have
touched it, the more hacks it has accumulated.
So the equation is:
X=A*S
the total
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:28 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 7 jun 2008 kl. 14.02 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>
>
>
> > Regarding "gtk+-2.0 dying", I am amazed by that statement. I realize
> > that gtk+ developers like yourself have studied the matter with
> > greater
> > detail
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:05 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> 6 jun 2008 kl. 19.22 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>
> >> You just need to remember, nobody is forcing you to use Gtk+ 3.0 or
> >> even
> >> Gtk+ at all.
> >
> > That will not be true in practice. Once Gtk+ 3.0 com
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 18:22 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> I think I agree with Muntyan here. Gtk+ 3.0 brings nothing exciting, so
> why break API? It's just so pointless and painful for everyone. So
> much effort done with memory profiling and now we'll have to have two
> libraries,
Hi Gustavo,
6 jun 2008 kl. 19.22 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>> You just need to remember, nobody is forcing you to use Gtk+ 3.0 or
>> even
>> Gtk+ at all.
>
> That will not be true in practice. Once Gtk+ 3.0 comes out, Gtk+ 2.0
> will die a slow death, and projects have to switch to Gtk+
Le vendredi 06 juin 2008 à 18:22 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro a
écrit :
> I think I agree with Muntyan here. Gtk+ 3.0 brings nothing exciting, so
> why break API? It's just so pointless and painful for everyone. So
> much effort done with memory profiling and now we'll have to have two
> li
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, I think its worth noting (again) that while Clutter and the
> sketch of "scene graph central to GTK" are both very cool (with Clutter
> being here and now, and the scene graph stuff merely imagined), canvas
> wid
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:44 -0300, Johan Dahlin wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> [..]
> > Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> > developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> > to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> > applicat
Hey Matthias,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:49PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I spent some time looking through the git history. Here are a few
> notes I penned down while doing so:
>
> - docs are missing
> - for GSEAL itself,
> - for GSEAL_ENABLE
IIRC the GSEAL macro is supposed to end u
Having read the discussion, i just wanted to add that while i fully
understand that this is a critical time for Gtk+, and the current Gtk+ 3.0
plan is a mission critical plan, and so all Gtk+ developers just want to be
out and through with it, you shouldn't overlook that there are many _many_
peopl
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 09:55 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Some major features discussed are not depending on the 3.0 release to be
> > done. But Canvas is one of them. You might want to do an attempt to
> > violently push in a canvas into Gtk sure, but what we're really aiming at is
> > so
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Yevgen Muntyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 14:44 , Johan Dahlin wrote:
>
>> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>> [..]
>>> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
>>> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
>
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:44 -0300, Johan Dahlin wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> [..]
> > Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> > developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> > to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> > applicat
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:37:00 -0400
> Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> "bar" using the GObject way:
>
[CUT]
>
> or using the Qt way:
>
> c
2008/6/5 Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:54:31 +0100
> Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> >
> > > I do not say you should violate the code
> > > of conduct or whatever. It's nice if everybody i
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:00:59PM +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> Look at what you did, Yevgen Muntyan. Not only you're an evildoer and
> a hijacker who wants a canvas widget, but because you're so cruel, you
> made the little Emmanuele cry and leave. You will now be sent to hell
> and allowed to
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 15:55 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:16 +0200, Christian Dywan wrote:
> > What about Genie even?
> >
> > [indent=4]
> > uses
> > Glib
> >
> > class Foo : Object
> >
> > init
> > var bar = 0
>
> That doesn't define a property.
>
This
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:54:31 +0100
Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>
> > I do not say you should violate the code
> > of conduct or whatever. It's nice if everybody is nice and fluffy,
> > yes. But there are also people who ar
hi,
Brian J. Tarricone schrieb:
> Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
>> Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>>>
Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
to explain ho
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:21:10 -0400
Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't appreciate your language, and others don't either. See:
>
> http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
>
> If you can't discuss decently and on a technical ground without offering
> unsolicited personal advice, y
On Jun 5, 2008, at 14:44 , Johan Dahlin wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> [..]
>> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
>> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
>> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
>> application develo
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> application developers with this. It's a road
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> I do not say you should violate the code
> of conduct or whatever. It's nice if everybody is nice and fluffy,
> yes. But there are also people who are pissed off (that happens),
> or tired,
they should not write to gtk-devel-list, then,
Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
[..]
> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> application developers with this. It's a road to 4.0? Give me
> a break, ca
On Jun 5, 2008, at 14:02 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 13:43 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalist
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:59 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > class QFoo : public QObject
> > {
> >Q_OBJECT
> >
> >Q_PROPERTY(int bar READ bar WRITE setBar)
> [...]
> >
> > Which way do you prefer?
>
> The Vala way ?
>
In a way we being a bit offtopic but I agree fully wi
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 13:43 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalistic advice, but I
> >> believe that it would be good for
On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
[snip]
>> I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalistic advice, but I
>> believe that it would be good for you to cut down on some of the
>> zealotry when defending a pet project.
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> Sure, both systems need some reflection capabilities, which neither C
> nor C++ support natively. I don't see how this point would debunk the
> fact that C++ is a more expressive language than C, and that writing
> an object-oriented a
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:16 +0200, Christian Dywan wrote:
> What about Genie even?
>
> [indent=4]
> uses
> Glib
>
> class Foo : Object
>
> init
> var bar = 0
That doesn't define a property.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:25:02 +0200
schrieb Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> > "bar" using the GObject way:
> >
> > #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_g
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> or using the Qt way:
>
> class QFoo : public QObject
> {
>Q_OBJECT
>
>Q_PROPERTY(int bar READ bar WRITE setBar)
>
> public:
>void setBar (int value);
>int bar () c
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:44:08 +0300
"Felipe Contreras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Me, and many developers hate C++ with passion, if a toolkit
> requires C++, it's cutting a huge user-base.
See also earlier discussions regarding C89 vs. C99 style, specifically
with regard to availability of c
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> "bar" using the GObject way:
>
> #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> #define G_FOO(obj) (G_TYPE_CHECK_INSTANCE_CAST((obj),
2008/6/5 Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> [...]
> > Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> > "bar" using the GObject way:
> >
> > #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> > #def
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
[...]
> Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> "bar" using the GObject way:
>
> #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> #define G_FOO(obj) (G_TYPE_CHECK_INSTANCE_CAST((o
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:30:37PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
> > release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedded developers wont want to pick
> > it
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
>> release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedded developers wont want to pick
>>
On 6/5/08, Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sure, both systems need some reflection capabilities, which neither C
> nor C++ support natively. I don't see how this point would debunk the
> fact that C++ is a more expressive language than C, and that writing
> an object-oriented app
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:37:00 -0400
Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:35 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > > Basically, something like this:
> > >
> > > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html
> > >
> > > When reading this and other Qt documents, one real
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:35 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > Basically, something like this:
> >
> > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html
> >
> > When reading this and other Qt documents, one realizes that a large
> > technological gap separates GLib/GTK+ and Qt.
>
> I don't want to st
Morten Welinder wrote:
>> (things that developers of client code
>> have been wanting for years, such as the removal of deprecated code or
>> the mangling of fields),
>
> As an application developer I can assure you that we as a group are
> not actively looking for ways to break our applications.
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:09PM +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> is worth it or not. If the GLib/GTK+ maintainers believe that selling
> an ABI breakage and a major release with just "we've mangled fields;
> we've removed deprecated cruft" is ambitious enough, then who am I
> oppose.
Please cut
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
> release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedded developers wont want to pick
> it up before 2012.
AIUI this is NOT the case. My understanding of the Imend
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > I fail to see how any of this discussion should change your
> perception
> > of GObject. This is a discussion about GTK's usage of GObject, but
> your
> > own objects can continue to use it in whatever way makes the most
> sense
> > to
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:50:48 -0700
"Brian J. Tarricone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
> > Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rather than calling my sugge
> Hi all,
>
> As most of you already know, we have presented our vision of a GTK+ 3.0 at
> the hackfest in Berlin last March. In the weeks that followed we have
> received and seen a lot of positive reactions and we feel that the
> community mainly agrees with our plans and goals. We won't repea
Hi,
This is not relevant to getting GTK 3.0 off the ground. Please start a
new thread if you want to discuss property systems.
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
> Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
>>> to explain how the non-preprocessed, dynamic-only GLi
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> > Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
> > to explain how the non-preprocessed, dynamic-only GLib property design
> > is superi
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
> to explain how the non-preprocessed, dynamic-only GLib property design
> is superior to the Qt design (or at least not inferior), or describe
> these specific reason
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:50 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:
> Felipe Contreras schrieb:
> > So how should people create extra functionality? For example, I
> > extended GHashTable creating a g_hash_table_peek_first function, for
> > which I needed the private fields.
No you don't.
gboolean
true_predic
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:35:47 -0400
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:30 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:18 +0100
> > Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:44 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > >
hi,
Felipe Contreras schrieb:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>>
>>> ext Kristian Rietveld wrote:
10. Remove all structure fields from the public API. There are two ways
this can be done:
a) Mov
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> Tim Janik argued that the bad performance of the property system is
> not an issue in GTK+. I pointed out that in my understanding, the
> GObject framework is supposed to be a client-agnostic object
> system. As such, its performance i
You are right. Do you know on which system configurations on which it
is hard to install a gcc version with c99 Support?
Does anyone know how widespread the lack of c99-able compilers are?
Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedde
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:30 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:18 +0100
> Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:44 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> >
> > > > I don't want to start a flame war over old hat, but statements like this
> >
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:18 +0100
Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:44 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> > > I don't want to start a flame war over old hat, but statements like this
> > > shouldn't go unchallenged. GLib/GTK+ chose a different technology as a
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:39:33 -0500
Cody Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:15 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > I thought that GObject was meant as a general-purpose object system
> > for C, rather than as a GTK+-specific utility library. I suppose I
> > misunderstood.
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:44 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > I don't want to start a flame war over old hat, but statements like this
> > shouldn't go unchallenged. GLib/GTK+ chose a different technology as a
> > base than Qt did (C vs. C++, and no pre-processing source versus
> > preprocessing
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:35:41 -0400
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:40 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> >
> > Basically, something like this:
> >
> > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html
> >
> > When reading this and other Qt documents, one realize
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:15 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> I thought that GObject was meant as a general-purpose object system
> for C, rather than as a GTK+-specific utility library. I suppose I
> misunderstood.
I fail to see how any of this discussion should change your perception
of GObject.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:56:56 +0200 (CEST)
Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0200
> > Kristian Rietveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 4. We will completely lose all means to simply access fields by just
> >> d
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Kristian Rietveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Our repository
> --
>
> We have a git repository at git.imendio.com:
>
> git://git.imendio.com/projects/gtk+.git
>
> In this repository, the master branch tracks upstream. The sealing happens
> in the GS
Hi,
4 jun 2008 kl. 15.11 skrev Morten Welinder:
>> (things that developers of client code
>> have been wanting for years, such as the removal of deprecated code
>> or
>> the mangling of fields),
>
> As an application developer I can assure you that we as a group are
> not actively looking for w
> (things that developers of client code
> have been wanting for years, such as the removal of deprecated code or
> the mangling of fields),
As an application developer I can assure you that we as a group are
not actively looking for ways to break our applications. If the urge
should arise then w
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:40 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> Basically, something like this:
>
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html
>
> When reading this and other Qt documents, one realizes that a large
> technological gap separates GLib/GTK+ and Qt.
I don't want to start a
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM, sparkymat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're assuming GCC/Linux/x86 environments, there are other environments,
>>> such as embeded devices with optimized compilers for their architecture or
>>> non Linux operating systems for non x86 architectures where getting l
>> You're assuming GCC/Linux/x86 environments, there are other environments,
>> such as embeded devices with optimized compilers for their architecture or
>> non Linux operating systems for non x86 architectures where getting latest
>> GCC is not as easy.
>>
>> As Gtk is targetting to the mobile sp
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
>> ext Kristian Rietveld wrote:
>>> 10. Remove all structure fields from the public API. There are two ways
>>> this can be done:
>>> a) Move object structures to private headers.
2008/6/3 Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> 2008/6/3 BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>> Here is an overview:
>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/2/23/194544/139. Merely the
>> initialization inside the for loop feature is a huge improvement. But
>> I never understood why someone n
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0200
> Kristian Rietveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 4. We will completely lose all means to simply access fields by just
>> dereferencing the structure. Instead, we will start to use GObject
>> properties to access th
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:52:33 +0200
Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0200
> Kristian Rietveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 4. We will completely lose all means to simply access fields by just
> > dereferencing the structure. Instead, we will start to u
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> let's be clear: I have nothing against C99 (except the feature of
> declaring variables in the middle of a function - *eew*); but if no
> other compiler except gcc 4.x supports it properly...
Me too. But even gcc 4.x does not fully support c99. See
Am Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:09:56 +0100
schrieb "Alberto Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/3 BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >
> > Here is an overview:
> > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/2/23/194544/139. Merely the
> > initialization inside the for loop feature is a huge improvement.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0200
Kristian Rietveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. We will completely lose all means to simply access fields by just
> dereferencing the structure. Instead, we will start to use GObject
> properties to access this data much more often. Using g_object_[sg]et()
> c
On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:09 , Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> [I assume you wanted to keep the list in the loop... :-)]
>
> [on a related note: I'm subscribed to the list - could people stop
> cc-ing me in when replying? I lose threads]
>
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 11:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>> On Tue
2008/6/3 BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Here is an overview:
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/2/23/194544/139. Merely the
> initialization inside the for loop feature is a huge improvement. But
> I never understood why someone needs to build the latest and greatest
> GTK+ on an anc
[I assume you wanted to keep the list in the loop... :-)]
[on a related note: I'm subscribed to the list - could people stop
cc-ing me in when replying? I lose threads]
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 11:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 14:34 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> >
> > a
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 15:00 +0200, Vincent Geddes wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any chance of using C99 for GTK+ 3.0? its a pretty good improvement
>> over ANSI C in many respects.
>
> I'm sure, but gtk+ is using C89, which is alrea
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 15:00 +0200, Vincent Geddes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any chance of using C99 for GTK+ 3.0? its a pretty good improvement
> over ANSI C in many respects.
I'm sure, but gtk+ is using C89, which is already a good improvement
over ANSI C.
anyway, I very much doubt that the compilers la
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Vincent Geddes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any chance of using C99 for GTK+ 3.0? its a pretty good improvement
> over ANSI C in many respects.
>
> Various resources:
> 1. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-c99.html
> 2. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-January/m
Hi,
Any chance of using C99 for GTK+ 3.0? its a pretty good improvement
over ANSI C in many respects.
Various resources:
1. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-c99.html
2. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-January/msg00057.html
Vincent
___
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> ext Kristian Rietveld wrote:
>> 10. Remove all structure fields from the public API. There are two ways
>> this can be done:
>> a) Move object structures to private headers.
>> b) Move object structures to the local C file, the rest of GTK+ will t
ext Kristian Rietveld wrote:
> 10. Remove all structure fields from the public API. There are two ways
> this can be done:
> a) Move object structures to private headers.
> b) Move object structures to the local C file, the rest of GTK+ will then
> also have to use accessors.
If you go f
Hi all,
As most of you already know, we have presented our vision of a GTK+ 3.0 at
the hackfest in Berlin last March. In the weeks that followed we have
received and seen a lot of positive reactions and we feel that the
community mainly agrees with our plans and goals. We won't repeat the
origin
99 matches
Mail list logo
