Hi, On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Christian Dywan <christ...@imendio.com> wrote: > Using G_TYPE_FOO in the API is imho a lot more agreeable than any new > string signature. Sure it's more to type, but at the same time it's > more comprehensible. :) >
I don't disagree for C. One thing to note though, it isn't really more comprehensible in Python or JavaScript or something, where otherwise GType can pretty much be ignored. In fact in Python or JS you're probably more likely to be looking at some dbus or file format docs that use the serialized signatures in the docs, than you are to be looking at GType-based docs. Having to go JavaScript type -> GType -> serialized type is just an extra hoop. I think it might be helpful to call the GVariant signature something about binary format. What means "GBinaryLayoutDescription" but is shorter? ;-) Havoc _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
