If you need to do these things manually, then what's the point in using
vala? It's the job of compilers.
People who like to do the job of compilers manually should use GObject/C
instead.
Manually filling a virtual function table and calculate offset of
pointers are really of fun. lol
Creating some
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamst...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed.
Would it make sense to a [CCode (vfunc_padding = 8)] to class
declarations? This could then be decremented when new virtual
functions are added (to the end of the class!).
I'd expect that
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jürg Billeter j...@bitron.ch wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 11:34 +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
2011/12/11 Tal Hadad tal...@hotmail.com
This idea is based on the assumption that the size of XClass struct
doesn't matter and can be changed(Am I right?).
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 12:12 +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jürg Billeter j...@bitron.ch wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 11:34 +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
2011/12/11 Tal Hadad tal...@hotmail.com
This idea is based on the assumption
I've read how GObject define virtual methods, in the XClass struct, and
I'm afraid defining new virtual method can break ABI. Am I right?
Before:
struct _XClass
{
GObjectClass parent_class;
/* stuff */
void (*do_action) (X *self, /* parameters */);
};
After:
struct _XClass
{
GObjectClass
2011/12/11 Tal Hadad tal...@hotmail.com
I've read how GObject define virtual methods, in the XClass struct, and
I'm afraid defining new virtual method can break ABI. Am I right?
Before:
struct _XClass
{
GObjectClass parent_class;
/* stuff */
void (*do_action) (X *self, /* parameters
is currently done by Vala? Is it
alphabetic or by the order of the decelerations?
Thanks
Tal
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:48:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [Vala] Can adding new virtual method break ABI?
From: lethalma...@gmail.com
To: tal...@hotmail.com
CC: vala-list@gnome.org
2011/12/11 Tal Hadad tal
