"Martin (OPENGeoMap)" <[email protected]> writes: > Maciej Piechotka escribió: >> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:48 +0100, Martin (OPENGeoMap) wrote: >> >>> I believe que a C compiler is the right place to this kind of >>> unsafe code. >>> >> >> What do you mean by 'unsafe'? If the 'unsafe' code is unsafe there is no >> place to put it. If the 'unsafe' means that the code cannot be verified >> easily by compiler if it is correct that there is place in C code (or >> any other). >> > by unsafe i want say something like the g-signal-connect macro: > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gobject/unstable/gobject-Signals.html#g-signal-connect
Is there any 'magic switch' which changes it behaviour? >> >>> If i want create safe code i have c#,c++, JAVA, D or VALA. >>> Using macros is the only way to ensure intermediate APIs don´t have >>> any overhead. >>> >> >> How much is the overhead? How big it is in compare to for example I/O in >> accessing filesystem, drawing in access to GTK+ or to GC in access to >> C#/Java? >> > hummm. > Example: > If we have for example a DWG binary file we have for example 15000 > utf16 strings. If i use glib i need make 15000 translations utf16/utf8 > to use the utf8 glib api. When i need save the file i need make other > 15000 translations. There are thounsand of formats using utf16. I > don´t love utf16, but I "MUST" use utf16 in the real world. I am not > the guilty of existence of utf16 :'( . > > Regards. > How much more time does it need for the conversion? In compare to the I/O? Will it be 30%, 3%, 0.3%, 0.03% or 0.003% faster? Regards -- I've probably left my head... somewhere. Please wait untill I find it. Homepage (pl_PL): http://uzytkownik.jogger.pl/ (GNU/)Linux User: #425935 (see http://counter.li.org/) _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
