> Why does it need to be added to the C++ header? Why not have a fully separate > header tree?
The main reason was so that C programs can include headers from the same locations as C++ can. A separate header tree is a better idea though now that I think about it. > But we'll need a proof of concept this actually works. No problem, I'll try to get a working one finished and uploaded on my github account. I tried looking at the python binder for a while, but the code doesn't look like it could be reused for binding other languages so I think it would be easier to just start from scratch. --- > I do not see why you want this to be "approved for Qt" to begin with. I > think it is much more practical to keep the C bindings separate, just as all > the other language bindings out there. It probably wouldn't make too big of a difference if the bindings were external or internal now that wrapper functions are pretty much going to be used for everything, but I think it would be better if they were internal since it would make developers more likely to try it out instead of feeling like GTK is the only option that's really built for C. Other than that, having C-like symbols could also come in handy in the future for binding other languages.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
