Re: signals versus vfuncs

[Christof Petig <christof petig-baender de>]

Ross McFarland schrieb:
> that's the main problem. without signals we have to add specific
> code/info for each and every situation. 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.

Didn't I say that vfuncs are much much much faster (nearly no overhead) 
and always call exactly one 'callback', so they can return any type of 
result. This is impossible with signals (having 0-N subscribers).

That's the reason for vfuncs. I expect a 2-5x slowdown for TreeViews if 
vfuncs are replaced by signals (guessed out of thin air). Unacceptable.

I'm no core gtk developer, so I might guess their intentions wrong.
   Christof