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

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, muppet wrote:

>
> 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.

as i outlined in my inintial email on this subject, i'm not convinced that
the parent call macros provide significant savings, or that they'd improve
readability of the affected code portions.

> 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.

that benefit is preserved by means of using G_DEFINE_TYPE_EXTENDED().

---
ciaoTJ