Re: Adding full introspection information (#139486)

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Maciej Katafiasz wrote:

> > I think the right goal for the introspection mechanism is that you
> > *could* write reasonable APIs doing the same thing as pango/gtk that
> > would be 100% introspectable and auto-bindable. Not that the 
> > *existing*
> > pango/gtk API be 100% introspectable.
>
> Hmm, not entirely true. That is, existing APIs are not introspectable
> because they, ugh, lack full introspection. However, that's matter of
> adding that info. Once its there, existing APIs are bindable, as is
> shown by existing bindings. Then, the resulting APIs will be
> introspectable + autobindable

answer this, then:  how will this introspection info help to bind 
GBoxed types (generic structures), G_TYPE_POINTER object properties, 
variadic C functions, C function pointers (hooks and other things that 
don't go through the GSignal/GClosure mechanisms), and 
GList/GSList/GHashTable values (which don't specify the types of the 
things inside)?

(these are the things that i have found typically require hand-written 
binding code.)

for the record, i'm in favor of something like typelib; i just want to 
know how it could be implemented without requiring changes to the 
existing APIs.  i believe months ago i was lamenting the lack of 
introspection info for non-signal virtual methods...

--
"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