Am Mon, 30 May 2011 21:13:16 -0400 schrieb Havoc Pennington: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shaun McCance <sha...@gnome.org> > wrote: > > But I want to point out that my point was never that GLib > > should behave like a language with exceptions. Just that > > it should let bindings in those languages behave like they > > should. > > I agree that would be ideal if you were optimizing for non-C. > > But the only way to do that is to replicate the entire API currently > lacking an error indicator, with a second _with_error version of every > function. > > Some functions may happen to have some other ad hoc way to do an error > (like returning NULL) but it'd just be some subset without rhyme or > reason. > > If you aren't prepared to do the _with_error() replication of the API, > then doing it here and there at random is kinda weird. Either it's > needed or not, it isn't needed here and there at random.
This is a great argument. There was a mistake. It made you notice the API is inconsistent, so you suddenly insist that GLib can't be improved further without rewriting all the functions.... I would personally prefer it if you were honest and would say that your opinion is set, instead of giving bogus arguments. Including the one about g_error. Then nobody would continue wasting time on trying to explain his point of view to deaf ears. -- ciao, Christian _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list