On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:57 +0100, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:34 +0100 Kevin Krammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > > On Wednesday 21 March 2007 21:57 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:58 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > > As an alternative to a bitfield, one option is a dictionary of > > > > properties. This is most likely nicer than a bitfield in say python, > > > > and more annoying than a bitfield in C. > > > > > > Yes, a dictionary might be nice, but it's not trivial to access in C. > > > This stuff really needs to be *trivial* for an application to access, > > > hence why I think booleans are probably best. > > > > How likely is an application written in C not going to use the D-Bus glib > > bindings? > > > > (Assuming that these bindings support dictionaries) > > hand up in this corner for starters.
I am pretty sure they do, but since I haven't used them myself yet, I thought it would be better to word it as an assumption. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring
pgp5cDdnIF3nT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
