Re: glib.defs and gdk.defs

> We should move on with reviewing the defs format.
> Some things that might help are:
>  - posting a summary of the changes that have been proposed (there hasn't
>    been much/any complaints about them, so they will probably go in).
I already have some other cosmetic proposals that in most cases
keep functionality whilst turning the defs format into more "proper lisp
format" thingie.
>  - making a list of the various features in the defs format, and getting
>    all the language binding authors to say which parts they would actually
>    be using in their binding.  Putting this info together, we will have a
>    better idea of what is actually useful in the defs format (and see if
>    there is any dead wood).
Yes. There a lot of things that seems to help only certain language
(i.e. compiled ones) but I don;t remember hearing a word from authors
of those bindings.

> Other things that might be useful are:
>   - integrating proposed changes into specification
We need an "official" defs format document standard 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]