Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?

[Guillaume Laurent <glaurent worldnet fr>]

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