On 09/11/2007, Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > > > On 07/11/2007, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> How about token concatenation[1]? > > i have to use that already for the current implementation, > see my recent header: > > http://git.imendio.com/?p=timj/glib-testing.git;a=blob;f=glib/gtestframework.h;hb=617f2d3398e969bc2c38e1e6138a98cfaf91c7b9 > > > If anybody agrees with me that we must have an IDE friendly syntax, or > have > > other reasons to believe that > > > > g_assert_cmpint (1, G_EQUALS, 2); > > i don't quite see the benefit here. if there was a need to avoid the > operator notation however, i'd definitely prefer something like: > > g_assert_int_lt (1, 2); > g_assert_int_le (1, 2); > g_assert_int_eq (1, 2); > g_assert_int_ne (1, 2); > > for <, <=, ==, != respectively.
That is certainly another possibility. However a design goal of my code was to only expose one public symbol per simple type and let the rest of the public methods be implemented in macros wrapping these symbols. I am not sure that is viable with your above solution. Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
