[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl R. Witty) wrote,
> Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The Green Card binding will definitely be correct, but AFAIK the IDL
> > binding will be not. This was one of my main motivations for preferring
> > Green Card to H/Direct. To the IDL wizards: Is there a *simple* way to
> > ensure consistency between header files and IDL sources, i.e. without
> > perl/m4/awk/...?
>
> (Disclaimer: I'm not an IDL wizard.)
>
> In a sense, there is a way to ensure consistency between header files
> and IDL sources: generate the header files from the IDL. This should
> work fine for projects where you're maintaining the C side yourself
> (so you can decide to move to IDL for the "master"), but is obviously
> going to be quite difficult for externally maintained libraries. (I
> could imagine Gtk moving in that direction, though...I wonder if
> they'd be receptive to such a proposal?)
I am not sure whether that would work for GTK+. The reason
is that GTK+'s .h files contain a lot of "internal"
interfaces, ie, routines and data structures, which should
not be used by applications building on GTK+. Furthermore,
GTK+ makes heavy use of macros and I am not sure how you
would represent them in an IDL.
Manuel
