Re: linking to signals

[Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com>]

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 15:06 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 08:25 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 09:58 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> 
> > > That will affect properties as well, won't it? Was that intentional?
> > 
> > Ah, yes. Didn't I mention that I'd like to see property links shortened
> > as well ? But we can treat that independently, if you want. I guess even
> > better would be some context-sensitive solution, ie create short links
> > when in the context of the same class, ie for a link from
> > gtk_foo_set_bar to Foo:bar, and create full links otherwise. But that
> > may be a bit harder.
> 
> I've just tried the patch and I'm afraid I don't really like the
> ':property' and '::signal' in the output. It seems more confusing than
> helpful to me.
> 
> I agree about shortening the link text though. I've changed it to just
> use "property" and "signal". Hopefully that is good enough.
> 

I disagree a bit with this. ::foo-bar is already a relatively widespread
conventions for referring to signals, just look through the GTK+ docs.
One of the big advantages of my proposal was to unify the non-link and
link appearance of signals. If I can't have ::foo-bar, I'd rather have
the long names back...