On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Ryan Lortie <de...@desrt.ca> wrote: > > What makes this particular incident of note is that popup_for_device() > existed in Gtk 3.2 and was bound as such. Python applications[1] > started using it, and then, with this commit, it disappeared. > > We need to figure out what our story is with respect to annotations. > 'Rename to:' is an extreme example (since an entire function, as named, > disappears) but we can easily cause problems just as serious with > changes that look a lot more innocent (like changing array length > parameters or such). We can even break vala bindings with the > introduction of an (allow none).
Thanks for raising the issue. In this particular case, the only reason that popup_for_device was added in the first place was to have a bindable version of popup - the 'rename to' annotation should really have been there from the beginning. But its a fair question to ask - at what point do we stop considering the introspected bindings a work-in-progress and treat annotations as equally part of the stable api ? Sounds like your take is that the answer has to be 'now'... _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
