RE: signals versus vfuncs

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 08:22, Christof Petig wrote:
> > oh, I see. I don't think that you have any choice (gtk+ does not 
> > provide
> > vfunc arg specifications at runtime). But you might compile in 
> > *_vfuncs.def and use that.
> 
> that's the main problem. without signals we have to add 
> specific code/info for each and every situation.

Yes. vfuncs are like that.

> with signals 
> it's all magic (provided that they're done right and have the 
> correct parameter types.) we (and by we i mean muppet) have 
> purposed (and even somewhat
> implemented) solutions for the situation, but they are at 
> best hacks that don't have really to be, if there were 
> signals for us to connect to as most older code seems to have 
> done. bascially i think muppet is looking for 'the reason' 
> why there seems to have been a shift in the way things where 
> done, and to say that it makes bindings much harder to do and 
> error prone.

I see no shift in the way things were done. These vfuncs have been around
for a long time. You need special code for them, just as you need special
code for normal functions. You don't need to introspect functions so I don't
think you need to introspect virtual functions.

The only difference is that you need to hand-code your .defs for vfuncs
because h2defs.py doesn't tell you about them.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net