Yes it will be much better.
But what about the set_data_full? Some other modifiers shall be
invented?
The following will be much more direct than the cname stuff, and more
flexible(I'll be more specific on CCodeFunc in next mail):
[CCodeFunc g_object_set_data_full(this, key, data, G.DestroyFunc) ]
public void set_data<G> (string key, G# data);
[CCodeFunc g_object_set_data(this, key, data) ]
public void set_data<weak G> (string key, G data);
class SomeClass {
[CCodeFunc g_object_unref(this)]
public DestroyFunc();
};
Three use case:
1: Use vala auto mem management:
set_data<SomeClass>("data", new SomeClass());
2: Use vala auto mem management but no ownership transfer:
set_data<weak SomeClass>("data", new SomeClass());
3: manual management:
set_data_full<weak SomeClass>("data", new SomeClass(),
SomeClass.DestroyFunc);
Yu
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 19:21 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 03:39 -0400, Yu Feng wrote:
> > The need for an 'Any' type emerges in the following context:
> >
> >
> > Object o = new Object();
> > Object o1 = new Object();
> > string s = "string"
> > o.set_data("data", o1);
> > o.set_data("string", s);
> >
> > set_data is currently declared as
> > set_data(string, void *);
>
> We should bind g_object_set_data as a generic method
>
> [CCode (cname = "g_object_set_data_full")]
> public void set_data<G> (string key, G# data);
>
> However, we don't support generic methods in Vala, yet.
>
> Jürg
>
_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
