Re: Moving to pointer-sized GType?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Dan Winship <danw ximian com> writes: 
> Yes, I understood that. I'm just saying, why not say "typedef gpointer
> GType" instead, so that any code that assumes GType == guint will break
> on *all* architectures, and you can just do "switch (GPOINTER_TO_UINT
> (type))" etc. rather than "switch (type)" directly.

Oh, I see, sorry. Hmm. That does have the advantage that it breaks
compilation when it breaks the code.

Havoc