Re: Widget descriptors as unions
On 08/29/2015 10:53 AM, LRN wrote:
> On 29.08.2015 11:46, Florian Pelz wrote:
>> On 08/29/2015 10:39 AM, Jean-Marie Delapierre wrote:
>>> I have explained (I hope in a clear way, but I begin to doubt about it)
>>> that the unions I suggest only own pointers, not child objects as you
>>> say in your answer.
>> I think it is clear, but you still need to declare one such union for
>> each class.
> Union-pointers sound like a neat trick.
> Can't you generate headers with these union-pointer declarations
> automatically, using gobject introspection?
I don't like requiring an additional tool for building. It also makes
the inner workings less transparent than using only the C high-level
assembler with macros. I don't think you can do the declaration
conveniently without additional tools, i.e. just a C preprocessor and
> I'm also not sure what are the ABI implications. Are unions compile-time
> only? I guess you'd only change a pointer-union if the class hierarchy of
> its corresponding widget class changes, which sounds like a good excuse to
> recompile anyway...
ABI-wise, unions don't make a difference. But: If you use a library that
uses a class that inherits from a GTK class and the GTK class starts
implementing a new interface, you'd need to recompile the library's
gtk-list mailing list