On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 17:01 +0200, Johan Dahlin wrote: > Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 09:35 +0200, Johan Dahlin wrote: > >> I'm proud to announce the initial release of GObject-Introspection. > >> Colin Walters and I have been hacking madly on it for the past couple of > >> weeks and we have finally reached a point to where we're ready for more > >> more users. > >> > >> Tarball can be found at: > >> http://download.gnome.org/sources/gobject-introspection/0.5/ > >> > >> The goal of the project is to describe the APIs and collect them in > >> a uniform, machine readable format. The initial target is language > >> bindings, > >> which are heavy users of this kind of data. > > > > I have a question about the details of GITransfer. > > GITransfer is still a bit in a flux as none of the existing (open) users > use it yet. > > GITransfer is part of the typelib which hasn't yet been updated to the > revised XML format. One of the main changes was to allow nested types > definitions, and thus being able to specify things such as: > - type of the list > - type of the element > > I'm leaning towards using the "ownership" terminology instead of "transfer". > > typedef enum { > GI_OWNERSHIP_CALLER, /* caller owns it, caller should free it after use */ > GI_OWNERSHIP_CALLEE /* callee owns it, caller should leave it as it is */ > } GITypeOwnership; > > > Ownership examples of existing APIs: > gtk_container_get_children: list = caller, element = callee > gtk_icon_view_get_selected_items: list = caller, element = caller > gtk_rc_get_default_files: list = callee, element = callee
So, your specify ownership twice, once for container and once for contents? Makes sense to me. The problem with the "transfer" terminology is that it takes a different meaning for in args than for out/return args, and this way we can avoid that. _______________________________________________ language-bindings mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/language-bindings
