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 - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list