Re: introspection vs gtk_init()
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 13:31:03 -0400
- From: Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: introspection vs gtk_init()
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 01:03 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> * a bunch of our types rely on library initialization, and that's
> just not always feasible in all the conditions (e.g. build machines),
> but we cannot know which one from the outside, and we cannot reliably
> test against this
I'd phrase this as :the target binaries should not depend on the build environment.
This matters not just for headless build machines, but also for
cross-compilation. Windows GTK+ binaries built from a Unix machine
should have the same API/ABI as one self-hosted.
> We cannot "fix introspection" alone — though we should stop running
> code to introspect properties and signals and run-time, and just parse
> the gtk-doc stanzas for those elements; I mean: we're already parsing
> C code, parsing g_signal_new/g_param_spec_* invocations is not really
> much of a jump; this would only solve a part of the problem.
It's possible, but a lot of work to find and fix the little details. It'd have
to be opt-in for libraries that have ported.
But yeah, in this case we know the modifier mask statically as you said.
gtk-devel-list mailing list