Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?
- From: Guillaume Laurent <glaurent worldnet fr>
- To: gtk-devel-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?
- Date: 10 Dec 1999 15:42:57 +0100
Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Karl Nelson wrote:
>
> > I think this is definitly the right track. But is does miss
> > one of Guillaume's points, consistancy. It is not necessary to
> > work in a language that forces it, but if a simple macro format
> > converted a base format (like the gtkprocess header generator)
> > was provided it would at least ensure the object system was
> > easier to use and more consistantly applied.
>
> hum, i don't think i understand what you are talking about here
> (though i haven't paid close attention to all of guillaume's posts
> because of language bashing that went on there).
May I suggest that you read them again, and try to see my point ? Or
tell me where you fell I'm lending myself to "language bashing", so I
can perhaps clarify things a little.
The only thing I'm bashing is abuse of a language. It's just common
sense, really. Nothing inflamatory.
> and provide a pointer to that gtkprocess header generator you are
> talking about, i'd apprechiate that.
I think he's talking about GOB, the GTK+ Object Builder.
--
Guillaume
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]