On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:25:30PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> (We already discussed at length why this > >> is needed and we are already doing it for other boolean getters so > >> lets not have the discussion about this need, again). > > > > Actually this was discussed for libosinfo, not libvirt-glib, here is the > > relevant email for those who were wondering about this discussion: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2011-November/msg00090.html > > Ah ok but both libraries are meant to be first-class g* citizens and > hence the same need to follow the usual conventions unless there is a > compelling reason not to.
Making the C API as nice as possible to users is a very compelling reason to me since we are writing a C library (emphasis on the "to me", I know we disagree :) This naming convention for getters is probably only useful for vala, I think bindings for dynamic languages will introspect object properties at runtime and use g_object_get(). So the decision to make is between making the API nicer to read for C users VS making life slightly easier for some bindings. Would a Rename to: annotation help vala here? Or is there some annotation I don't know of to mark property getters/setters? Christophe
pgpCBBsrAAEpQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
