On 24 October 2013 13:09, Matthew Brush <mbr...@codebrainz.ca> wrote:
> On 13-10-23 11:36 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote: > >> [snip] >> > > Regarding that pattern we discussed previously and used in this AutoClose > code for attaching data to a document, I'd be interested whether you or > anyone thinks this branch (last/top two commits) would be useful to plugins: > > https://github.com/codebrainz/**geany/commits/document-**datalist<https://github.com/codebrainz/geany/commits/document-datalist> > > IIUC several plugins already use various methods of storing data for different documents and other Geany data structures. Having a common way of doing that which cleans up when the Geany struct is destroyed is a good idea. But it seems a pity to have to duplicate the glib interface for each structure that offers the facility, can we just return the GData and let the plugins use the normal g_datalist functions? > IMO it'd be better to make GeanyDocument an actual GObject and get the > data lists for "free", but at least this is sort of a step in the same > direction. > > Disclaimer: I have no interest in "defending" this or hashing it out, it's > just one of my many local branches and hasn't been really tested. If anyone > doesn't like it, or spots some bugs or something, they can just not saying > anything (ie. I'm not asking for Code Review) and it will quietly go away, > if anyone really likes it, they can push it forward and we can review and > discuss it at that point. > > Don't try to make special conditions that say your contributions must not be discussed/reviewed, thats rude, its like saying you think you are better than the other contributors on this list. Cheers Lex PS On the recycling of doc structures and doc->is_valid, this does have the advantage (for a structure where miscellaneous pointers to the structure are going to exist in Geany and plugins) that doc pointers will always point to a geanydocument struct. So the is_valid test is always right. If the memory was returned and re-cycled into some other struct, the old doc pointers could point to anything, and could just as easily appear a valid document. So its safer than the alternative, but the requirement to check is_valid really does need more visibility since its an unusual idiom. Cheers, > Matthew Brush > > ______________________________**_________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.geany.org > https://lists.geany.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel> >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
