On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 17:57 -0500, José Alburquerque wrote: > José Alburquerque wrote: > > Murray Cumming wrote: > > > I think we should do this in C++ much as it is done in C: > > > - We should have an add_watch(priority) that just causes the signal to > > > be emitted. > > > and > > > - We should have an add_watch(slot) that provides a sigc::slot that is > > > called. We have lots of these set_func(slot)-like functions in gtkmm. > > > > Hi. I'm trying to implement these GstBus "watch" functions and I > > have a quick question. AFAICT, GstBus has the following "watch" > > functions: > > > > gst_bus_add_watch(GstBus*, GstBusFunc func, gpointer) > > gs_bus_add_watch_full(GstBus*, gint priority, GstBusFunc func, > > gpointer data, GDestroyNotify notify) > > gst_bus_add_signal_watch(GstBus*) > > gst_bus_add_signal_watch_full(GstBus*, gint priority) > > gst_bus_remove_signal_watch(GstBus*) > > > > As I understand, the first two will be wrapped using slots while the > > last three deal with enabling/disabling the Gst::Bus "message" > > signal. My question is: When these functions are wrapped, should > > similar names be used for the methods (eg. > > Gst::Bus::add_signal_watch() for gst_bus_add_signal_watch)? > > > > -Jose > > > > > I was sort of thinking of having a Gst::Bus::enable_message_signal() > and a Gst::Bus::disable_message_signal() (for the message signal)
I do wonder if these can be called more than once, and what remove_signal_watch() does if I've called it twice. If they can only be called once then enable/disable would be clearer, but I think we need to discover more. > and then having methods like Gst::Bus::add_watch() and > Gst::Bus::add_watch(priority) for the slots. This seems correct. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
