Hi Martin, Glad that we have a potential new contributor ;)
On 13/07/10 16:18, Maciej Piechotka wrote: > On 13/07/10 16:08, Martin DeMello wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Maciej Piechotka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 13/07/10 13:17, Martin DeMello wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm new to vala in general; could someone explain why adding methods >>>> to, say, Iterable would break the API? >>> >>> Because method add to interface means any class which implemented the >>> interface must implement additional method. Which it currently does not >>> implement. >> >> But can't the methods be defined as concrete in the interface, the way >> ruby does it? All it requires is foreach. > > Currently no. But the bug I posted is about adding this functionality to > Vala. Currently Vala interfaces are more Java/C#-like. I personally dislike this way of extension and prefer the interface/abstract-classes way, but here I guess that this is really a question of style and habits... All in all, breaking the ABI/API is not a problem, as we still have at least one anticipated round of developement where we do expect to break the ABI. So don't let that limit your imagination/creativity/engineering... At first I propose that you both collaborate to define a feature set that you would need/like/foresee. As you seem to have same background concerning haskell and ruby, I guess you can easily come into consensus :) So what kind of operators ? What do they take as argument ? ... Then we would discuss of style. (methods defines on iterables, iterators, ...) Best regards, Didier. _______________________________________________ libgee-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libgee-list
