This is a side thread but I think some important issues are in question On Thursday 15 February 2007 2:48 pm, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > Gerald I. Evenden wrote: > > 2. A side thread suggested that in order to understand the usage of a > > system like libglade one should study the source. > > I think that's pretty standard practice where any open source > library/development system is concerned. Having full reference > documentation, tutorials, etc. is great, but you can't expect them > (unless you're willing to pay for them to be written, or write them > yourself). Source code inspection is always an option.
This is not an option with me, especially with such a complex package as this. It would take months to go over the source code and develop a rudimentary understanding of all the entries and how they interrelate. If the only way to use a package requires this option then I will deem it not ready for prime-time and totally unusable. > Note that I don't think there was much of a suggestion to inspect the > libglade source; just that there are example programs (with source, of > course) included in the libglade source tarball. Not really the same > thing at all. Tristan (I think) even asked how these could be made more > obvious/available, but didn't receive a decent reply AFAIK. > > > Hmmm. To use the C (or any > > compiler) I should study the source code for the compiler??? > > Bad analogy. A compiler is a user-space application. libglade is a > library intended to be used by developers. I do not understand your statement. How is using a compiler not a developer's function? > > To use the math library I should study the library's source?? > > That's one of your options, yes. If you don't know the name of a > particular function in the math library, seems to me that the fastest > place to look would be /usr/include/math.h. Then you can look at a man > page or other reference documentation, or, if needed, look at the .c > file where the implementation is (I think this would be pretty rare). I do not consider examining libm source a viable option for much of the same reasons previously stated. I generally rely upon Harbison & Steele for all my libm documentation mainly to ensure staying reasonably within acceptable standards. Occasionally, a look at a man or info entry. ... > > 3. Getting back to libglade. I have searched through many pages of > > google to find either a decent reference and/or tutorial for libglade. A > > couple of tutorials make halfway attempts but ultimately fail because > > they have no reference manual to rely on---among other failings. Finding > > a libglade reference manual is a total failure. > > Then that's your failure, not libglade's: > > http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/libglade/index.html > > There's a very simple tutorial here: > http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/libglade/index.html > ... which also includes instructions on how to link applications that > use libglade. > > > There are a couple of sites which claim > > to be a reference manual but I find them totally inadequate. > > Please explain why the site referenced above is inadequate. I believe that much of the above and following issues are reasonably well resolved but there are serious problems with the adequacy of some sections (glib) but I will address these to a specific issue on a subsequent email ... -- The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum. -- Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) British psychologist _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list