2008/7/17 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/17 Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here are some alternate ideas, just brainstorming:
>>
>> 1) have an iterator concept in gobject-introspection and map from
>> GList etc. in g-i. So g-i would allow you to invoke a
Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2008, 14:23 -0400 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You could make a GLib.Iterator that uses gobject-introspection, but I
> > don't think you want to make gobject-introspection the one thing
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:37 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Why explore alternate ideas? Some downsides to GIterator-as-gobject:
>>
>> * GObject is pretty heavyweight for something like this, and moreover
>> right now l
2008/7/17 Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Here are some alternate ideas, just brainstorming:
>
> 1) have an iterator concept in gobject-introspection and map from
> GList etc. in g-i. So g-i would allow you to invoke a method that
> returns a list, and get an iterator back.
>
> If I
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:23 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You could make a GLib.Iterator that uses gobject-introspection, but I
> > don't think you want to make gobject-introspection the one thing
> > everyb
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Sven Herzberg wrote:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2008, 20:18 +0200 schrieb Tim Janik:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Martin Meyer wrote:
2) Is it entirely possible from a gtk perspective to have all that
code detached from gtk-core and placed in a different library? Are
there any
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:22 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:37 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> As philip's proposal centres around easier bindings this would only
> affect public API dealing with licts/collections so all of the above
> will probably have negligible impact
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2008, 20:18 +0200 schrieb Tim Janik:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Martin Meyer wrote:
> > 2) Is it entirely possible from a gtk perspective to have all that
> > code detached from gtk-core and placed in a different library? Are
> > there any deprecated things that this would
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could make a GLib.Iterator that uses gobject-introspection, but I
> don't think you want to make gobject-introspection the one thing
> everybody who wants to expose collections in his API has to use and
> learn.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Martin Meyer wrote:
Several people have mentioned the "move the deprecated stuff into a
separate library" idea. Can we get some concrete answers on:
1) Would this satisfy the various apps still using the deprecated
code? i.e. is it OK to depend on this different library in
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 20:06 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Vala is an excellent example of how community people who are true black
> art masters and experts in GLib/GObject can provide excellent language
> bindings.
I meant "who are not true black art masters and ..." of course.
--
Philip Va
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:37 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hey Havoc,
> Here are some alternate ideas, just brainstorming:
>
> 1) have an iterator concept in gobject-introspection and map from
> GList etc. in g-i. So g-i would allow you to invoke a method that
> returns a list, and get an iterat
Hi,
Here are some alternate ideas, just brainstorming:
1) have an iterator concept in gobject-introspection and map from
GList etc. in g-i. So g-i would allow you to invoke a method that
returns a list, and get an iterator back.
If I were doing this in gobject-introspection I'd tend to make the
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:46 -0400, Yu Feng wrote:
> >
> > We are working on adding convenience functions for C to make things as
> > type safe as possible (the #1 problem with glib's current collection
> > types):
> >
> > gchar* g_iterator_get_as_string (GIterator *iter);
> > gdouble g_iterator
Several people have mentioned the "move the deprecated stuff into a
separate library" idea. Can we get some concrete answers on:
1) Would this satisfy the various apps still using the deprecated
code? i.e. is it OK to depend on this different library in the future
in addition to gtk-3? Are there a
Hi Tim,
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:51 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I would like to propose this API to go into glib/gio:
>
> http://live.gnome.org/IteratorsAPI
>
> A working implementation of it can be found here (just replace Gee.List
> with GLib.Seq, as that is the name that we
Hi there,
I would like to propose this API to go into glib/gio:
http://live.gnome.org/IteratorsAPI
A working implementation of it can be found here (just replace Gee.List
with GLib.Seq, as that is the name that we have for it in mind):
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/libgee/trunk/gee/
To see users
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 16:02 +0100, Xan wrote:
> This is exactly what they are doing, that's why they call it GTK+ 3.0,
> or 2.99.0, or whatever. You are free to keep using and maintaining the
> 2.x series for as long as you need. Now, if you'd like *others* to
> spend *their* time doing what *you
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Morten Welinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is just not cool to use Gtk.
>
> I think that pretty much hits it on the nail. Some people want a cool
> project to work on. By all means, go ahead! Fork gtk+ to something
> new, cool, fancy. But leave existing gt
> It is just not cool to use Gtk.
I think that pretty much hits it on the nail. Some people want a cool
project to work on. By all means, go ahead! Fork gtk+ to something
new, cool, fancy. But leave existing gtk+ bugzilla and svn module
alone.
> In the end it comes down to which goal is deeme
2008/7/17 Travis Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I wish people would stop fighting against the "code cleanup release",
>> unless they really want to switch to an alternative widget library.
>> GTK+ isn't seeing the love it
Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2008, 06:59 -0500 schrieb Travis Watkins:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is this "code cleanup release" breaks everyone's
> applications for no reason.
This is wrong for 2 reasons:
1. It does only breaks apps that
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wish people would stop fighting against the "code cleanup release",
> unless they really want to switch to an alternative widget library.
> GTK+ isn't seeing the love it needs, and the strict API/ABI policy of
> GTK+ 2.x
2008/7/16 Colin Leroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:51:03 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> IMO, if you're still using GtkCTree and GtkCList, which were
>> deprecated when GTK+ 2.0 was released 6 years ago, you're asking for
>> trouble.
>
> Well, they do work for us. When GT
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:55:59 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
Hi,
> A suggestion that came up in the post-guadec discussions was to move
> deprecated widgets to libgtk3-compat instead of removing them. This
> means that applications using these will have to add that as a
> dependency to his c
Hi,
Just one thing, the entire starting point of our discussions around GTK
+ 3.0 was to avoid the 1.2 -> 2.0 pain. The proposed 3.0 is nothing
like the 1.x->2.0 migration so I'm a bit unsure on the relevance of
looking into these pains (other than to point out that they will not
be there
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:08:58PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:51 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote:
> fix". the closest might be kris' refusal to look at the treeview DnD
> situation in 2.X because he has a completely new implementation of the
> entire widget (family) waiting in
Hi,
Because the ABI is incompatible. Apps will need to be recompiled
against the new version.
Also, it is not API compatible with latest GTK+ without the flags.
Cheers,
Micke
17 jul 2008 kl. 05.03 skrev Paul Davis:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 04:11 +0200, Sven Herzberg wrote:
Paul, just in
28 matches
Mail list logo
