On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:53 +0000, Chris Vine wrote: [snip] > It is glibmm which has an inconsistent usage, by separating off only > gio into a separate namespace (which incidentally is ::Gio, not > Glib::Gio), which may be the source of what you find confusing. There > seems no particular reason why there should not be GThread, GObject and > GModule namespaces in glibmm:
Would there be much in those namespaces? There isn't much point in a namespace that has only one class. But if there are more classes per those namespaces, please do put the suggestion in bugzilla so we can consider it later. > the defining feature of course is that gio > contains vastly more code than would these others namespaces. Yes, gio has a huge amount of API, particularly now that it has the GDBus stuff too. It feels like a special case. The separation does seem arbitrary sometimes though. > However modularising glibmm is in my view a good thing, so Gio::DBus > sounds fine to me. But why restrict this to just one subset of gio, > namely gdbus? As I say, there is a great deal more namespace modularity > which could sensibly be implemented in glib. At the moment, I'm just moving them into a namespace. I assume that you are not proposing to move them into a separate shared library. -- [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
