Re: #107397 (Re: type_info macro generation ...)

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 09:27 PM, Tim Janik wrote:

> in effect, only 11% of the parent_class occourances out there [1] use 
> a prefix.
> G_DEFINE_TYPE() is a convenience macro meant to ease object 
> implementations,
> so it'd be somewhat counterproductive if in 89% of the cases, it 
> forced users
> to type a more elaborate version of parent_class than they'd normally 
> do.

please forgive a comment from the peanut gallery, but if you provide 
macros to call parent functions, which is where (prefix_)?parent_class 
would be used anyway, i don't think the people who don't use the prefix 
will argue with you providing it by default.

the benefit of being able to use the same boilerplate-reducing macros 
for multiple derivations in the same file IMO outweighs the lack of 
need to update code to use the macros.

i wager that most of the code that doesn't use the prefix does so not 
for any closely-held philosophy, but because it was copied from or 
patterned after other code that did not use the prefix.  many of my own 
objects follow this trend.

my $0.02, i'll shut up now.


--
"that's it! you're a genius!"  "yes.  that's what i think.  do you 
think i deserve a raise?"
	- dialogue from 'Godzilla versus Mothra', 1964