Re: g_object_ref_sink and GUnowned

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

Hi,

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 12:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 19:02 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> > in fact, there is no technical reason for this. so many people have
> > argued this to be better though (havoc even went so far as to argue
> > why this would be conceptually neccessary), that i decided to simply
> > sponsor an object type if that helps the majority to understand which
> > objects are floating and which are not.
> 
> Not that it's all that relevant ;-) but I also thought a flag in the
> class would be fine (and I thought a separate class would be fine too),
> just seems to me it should be somehow marked. James made a good point
> that right now it's already poorly marked, but why make it worse...

Instead of having a useless class, there just for making it obvious that
the object is floating, can't we add a class flag, like:

  void g_type_class_set_is_initially_unowned (gpointer *klass);

and let gtk-doc catch this like it catches other class-level stuff like
properties and signals?

This way, all the properly documented classes will get a paragraph in
the documentation saying "Warning, warning, Will Robinson: this object
has a floating reference when created".

This way we would avoid unnecessary binding breakage like what happenend
with the Perl bindings, and a warning for the users of the library.

Ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
Emmanuele Bassi - <ebassi gmail com>
Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net