if u think GTK is not a oriented object programming, make it easy, modify the code until it turns OOP, and with these you'll be helping the comunity to debug the source code, simple. all the other points of view are only attacks and not constructive comments.
ESTE HA SIDO UN MENSAJE DE TU DIOS AMO Y SEÑOR MALLER. MAS RESPETO HACIA TU DIOS, Y BORRA ESA ESTUPIDA SONRISA DE TU ROSTRO... 2009/12/20 <[email protected]> > Send gtk-list mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of gtk-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? (David Ne?as) > 2. Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? (David Ne?as) > 3. Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? (frederico schardong) > 4. Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? (frederico schardong) > 5. Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? (frederico schardong) > 6. Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? (frederico schardong) > 7. Re: Custom container + Child type with interface (David Ne?as) > 8. Re: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? (Matthew Bucknall) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:37:47 +0100 > From: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > To: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:07:01PM -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > > Is GTK+ really object oriented? > > > > Or just provide a fake object oriented environment? > > And what is the difference? > > If it walks like an object oriented environment and quacks like an > object oriented environment, how do you call it? > > Yeti > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:54:07 +0100 > From: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > To: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:40:34PM -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > > The difference is that not a really object-oriented, is a fake > object-oriented. > > > > I call it fake object-oriented environment, maybe not the most > > correctly name, but i think is true. > > > > What do you think? > > I think you still did not give any definition of what real and fake > means. At least for you since others will likely disagree whatever the > definition is. > > So again, it is built around OO concepts and behaves like an OO > environment. How can you tell it is a fake? > > Yeti > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:16:11 -0200 > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Date: 2009/12/20 > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > To: "Michael P. Soulier" <[email protected]> > > > Real is when the language have the concepts of ?class, objects, > instance, method, inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation, > polymorphism... > > In GTK+ programmin we don't have something like > widget->setVisibility(TRUE). For me it's broken the concept of object > oriented, because a attribute(visibility) of the class widget is set > by a extern function, not a method of the class widget. > > 2009/12/20 Michael P. Soulier <[email protected]>: > > On 20/12/09 frederico schardong said: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Is GTK+ really object oriented? > >> > >> Or just provide a fake object oriented environment? > > > > Define real. Define fake. > > > > Mike > > -- > > Michael P. Soulier <[email protected]> > > "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes > a > > touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite > direction." > > --Albert Einstein > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:16:32 -0200 > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Date: 2009/12/20 > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > To: "Michael P. Soulier" <[email protected]> > > > Fake is when change a attribute (visibility) of a class (gtkwidget) > only can be changed by a function (gtk_widget_hide() or > (gtk_widget_show()) not by a method. > > 2009/12/20 frederico schardong <[email protected]>: > > Real is when the language have the concepts of ?class, objects, > > instance, method, inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation, > > polymorphism... > > > > In GTK+ programmin we don't have something like > > widget->setVisibility(TRUE). For me it's broken the concept of object > > oriented, because a attribute(visibility) of the class widget is set > > by a extern function, not a method of the class widget. > > > > 2009/12/20 Michael P. Soulier <[email protected]>: > >> On 20/12/09 frederico schardong said: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Is GTK+ really object oriented? > >>> > >>> Or just provide a fake object oriented environment? > >> > >> Define real. Define fake. > >> > >> Mike > >> -- > >> Michael P. Soulier <[email protected]> > >> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It > takes a > >> touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite > direction." > >> --Albert Einstein > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Frederico Schardong, > > SOLIS - Open source solutions > > www.solis.coop.br > > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:16:51 -0200 > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Date: 2009/12/20 > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > To: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > > > The difference is that not a really object-oriented, is a fake > object-oriented. > > I call it fake object-oriented environment, maybe not the most > correctly name, but i think is true. > > What do you think? > > 2009/12/20 David Ne?as <[email protected]>: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:07:01PM -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > >> Is GTK+ really object oriented? > >> > >> Or just provide a fake object oriented environment? > > > > And what is the difference? > > > > If it walks like an object oriented environment and quacks like an > > object oriented environment, how do you call it? > > > > Yeti > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:17:12 -0200 > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Date: 2009/12/20 > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > To: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > > > Maybe I had expressed wrong. > > I don't wanna say that GTK+ NOT IS OO, I'm saying that the way that > GTK+ implements the concepts of OO is different. As I say before... > "change a attribute (visibility) of a class (gtkwidget) only can be > changed by a function (gtk_widget_hide() or (gtk_widget_show()) not by > a method". > > Yes, GTK+ has been construct around OO concepts, buts it have all > those concepts that a say before (class, objects, > instance, method, inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism)? > > Because this things a say that's fake (maybe not the correct word). > > 2009/12/20 David Ne?as <[email protected]>: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:40:34PM -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > >> The difference is that not a really object-oriented, is a fake > object-oriented. > >> > >> I call it fake object-oriented environment, maybe not the most > >> correctly name, but i think is true. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > I think you still did not give any definition of what real and fake > > means. ?At least for you since others will likely disagree whatever the > > definition is. > > > > So again, it is built around OO concepts and behaves like an OO > > environment. ?How can you tell it is a fake? > > > > Yeti > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > -- > Thanks, > Frederico Schardong, > SOLIS - Open source solutions > www.solis.coop.br > Linux registered user #500582 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:22:20 +0100 > From: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > To: Matthew Bucknall <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Custom container + Child type with interface > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 04:43:57PM +0000, Matthew Bucknall wrote: > > Next question - The interface I have defined basically just mandates a > > few properties. The container that requires children to implement this > > interface only ever reads these properties. > > > > Some implementers of the interface will determine the value of the > > interface properties based on various bits of internal state > > information. Other implementers will be passed the property values via > > their constructors. > > > > So as far as the container and some implementers are concerned, the > > interface properties only need to be G_PARAM_READABLE. In other cases, > > the properties might need to be (G_PARAM_READWRITE | > > G_PARAM_CONSTRUCT_ONLY). > > > > I assume that the interface definition has to go with the lowest common > > denominator, which I think is G_PARAM_READWRITE. In that case, what > > should implementers do where the properties are not settable (because > > they are derived from other state information)? > > I've never had to override properties (fortunately), so just some OO > theory... > > You do not go with `the least common denominator'. The is-a relation > between subclases and classes or implementations of interfaces means that > you can always say MyFoo is a GpanePanel if it implements the interface. > In other words, you must be always able to substitute the derived object > for the parent. > > You can't do this if the parent has writable properties but the child > has not. > > So to mandate the is-a relation in case of your properties, the parent > must have the most *restrictive* flags (typically G_PARAM_READABLE). > Subclasses can then permit more operations. > > Regards, > > Yeti > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:08:31 +0000 > From: Matthew Bucknall <[email protected]> > To: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Fwd: GTK+ is real object oriented? > Message-ID: <1261336111.28816.86.ca...@newton> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I think you're making way to strong a connection between language syntax > and programming paradigms. You're confusing 'what' with 'how'. > > GObject, on which GTK+ is built provides all the key OOP properties and > GTK+ uses them to maximum effect: > > Abstraction > Polymorphism > Inheritance > Encapsulation > > C was not designed with object-oriented programming in-mind, so of > course the way GObject goes about presenting the above characteristics > in a C API may be a little awkward compared to how they are realized in > other languages. That does not detract from the fact that GObject/GTK+ > provides a 'real' object-oriented environment. It just means it does so > in a way with which you might not be comfortable. > > Seems to me, if you want to stick with a compiled language, you might be > better off using C++ and programming GTK+ applications via the gtkmm C++ > bindings (http://www.gtkmm.org/). > > Matt. > > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 16:17 -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: frederico schardong <[email protected]> > > Date: 2009/12/20 > > Subject: Re: GTK+ is real object oriented? > > To: David Ne?as <[email protected]> > > > > > > Maybe I had expressed wrong. > > > > I don't wanna say that GTK+ NOT IS OO, I'm saying that the way that > > GTK+ implements the concepts of OO is different. As I say before... > > "change a attribute (visibility) of a class (gtkwidget) only can be > > changed by a function (gtk_widget_hide() or (gtk_widget_show()) not by > > a method". > > > > Yes, GTK+ has been construct around OO concepts, buts it have all > > those concepts that a say before (class, objects, > > instance, method, inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism)? > > > > Because this things a say that's fake (maybe not the correct word). > > > > 2009/12/20 David Ne?as <[email protected]>: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:40:34PM -0200, frederico schardong wrote: > > >> The difference is that not a really object-oriented, is a fake > object-oriented. > > >> > > >> I call it fake object-oriented environment, maybe not the most > > >> correctly name, but i think is true. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > > > > > I think you still did not give any definition of what real and fake > > > means. At least for you since others will likely disagree whatever the > > > definition is. > > > > > > So again, it is built around OO concepts and behaves like an OO > > > environment. How can you tell it is a fake? > > > > > > Yeti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Frederico Schardong, > > SOLIS - Open source solutions > > www.solis.coop.br > > Linux registered user #500582 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list > > > End of gtk-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 27 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
