On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 01:03 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> * a bunch of our types rely on library initialization, and that's > just not always feasible in all the conditions (e.g. build machines), > but we cannot know which one from the outside, and we cannot reliably > test against this I'd phrase this as :the target binaries should not depend on the build environment. This matters not just for headless build machines, but also for cross-compilation. Windows GTK+ binaries built from a Unix machine should have the same API/ABI as one self-hosted. > We cannot "fix introspection" alone — though we should stop running > code to introspect properties and signals and run-time, and just parse > the gtk-doc stanzas for those elements; I mean: we're already parsing > C code, parsing g_signal_new/g_param_spec_* invocations is not really > much of a jump; this would only solve a part of the problem. It's possible, but a lot of work to find and fix the little details. It'd have to be opt-in for libraries that have ported. But yeah, in this case we know the modifier mask statically as you said. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
