On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 15:54:32 +0800 Zhao Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for looking at this! > > > > Therefore, rename ObjectPropertyFlags to ObjectPropertyAccessorFlags, > > > and then the original name ObjectPropertyFlags can be used for other > > > cases. > > > > I wonder if we can just make existing ObjectPropertyFlags per object as > > you are planing > > and still continue using it for accessor flags. > > > > That basically will lets you use new flags everywhere without rewriting > > call sites > > everywhere. > > I'm not sure about this. Currently, these read/write flags are actually > specific to pointer properties (as showed by the changes in this patch, > which all involve object_property_add_*_ptr() / > object_class_property_add_*_ptr()). > > Other property types doesn't yet support flag parameters, so additional > interface modifications are still needed. > > And for now other property types either need to explicitly specify get/set > accessors (e.g., object_property_add_bool()) or directly use the default > get/set methods (e.g., object_property_add_link()). > > If we extend read/write flags to other property types, such as adding > "flags" argument to object_property_add_bool(), we must ensure the > OBJ_PROP_FLAG_READ flag align with "get" argument and OBJ_PROP_FLAG_WRITE > flag align with "set" parameters. Ain't thouse accessors callbacks? /I mean to you still can check flags inside of generic object property code without touching setter/getter./ >This would introduces additional complexity. it still might be woth considering to compare this series with alternative approach. > > Thanks, > Zhao >
