Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I quite strongly disagree with this. In my view, the functions
exported to the Scheme side must not be not be `dangerous' in the
sense that a pilot error can not lead to memory corruption, memory
leaks or
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, very true. I guess my main point is that I don't want
guile-gtk to degrade when switrhcing to g-wrap. That is, the work
of avoiding "dangerous" things has been done (more or less) and I
don't want to lose this.
Totally understandable.
Well,
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is because in general, I tend to favor this approach to one
that tries to hide the allocation semantics. Like it or not, when
you're wrapping a C API, I think you generally *do* have to know
(and care) about the allocation semantics, and I tend to
On 12 Nov 2000 18:56:28 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I quite strongly disagree with this. In my view, the functions
exported to the Scheme side must not be not be `dangerous' in the
sense that a pilot
(I've included gnucash-devel at this point because several of the
people there should be seeing this discussion, and until I get the
g-wrap list set up, which should be in about a week and a half,
gnucash-devel is the de-facto g-wrap devel list. I'll also CC your
previous mail there.)
Ok guys,
Attached I send the current defs file proposal. I'm ccing also the
gnome-bindings list
for it might be of interest to discuss possible modifications with them
to this
proposal.
ariel
The overall syntax is:
(type-of-thing-being-defined name-used-to-refer-to-this-thing
