Hi, I’ve just started working on this. I think we would need to provide a similar API for child properties as for other properties, because I don’t think all GtkContainer (maybe not even one) expose child properties through regular methods.
I see a major problem in doing this and I can’t find a valid approach that does not imply reimplementing a lot of things; maybe you could help me. The point is child properties are only available in Gtk+/gtkmm, while most of the infrastructure for generating code belongs to glibmm, and we don’t want to make glibmm depend on Gtk+ I think. First, we would need to make child properties appear in gtk_signals.defs or other .defs file. That could be done more or less easily creating an additional get_defs in gtkmm. Second, we would need to extend gmmproc to handle child properties. I see here a major problem. I’m not sure we could use the same _WRAP_PROPERTY / _PROPERTY_PROXY macros for child properties, i.e I don’t know if we could handle differences between gobject properties and child properties at pm level or at m4 level. What is your feeling about this? Third, we need to create a new PropertyProxy. I think this is the easiest; I’ve written some code for this on a local branch. Could you please comment on this? Thank you very much. Best regards, Juan. On 13 Apr 2014, at 10:17, Kjell Ahlstedt <kjell.ahlst...@bredband.net> wrote: > > 2014-04-12 20:35, Murray Cumming skrev: >> On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 19:16 +0200, Juan Rafael García Blanco wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I’ve observed that subclasses of Gtk::Container tend to declare properties >>> on their children. In the gtkmm source code I’ve read that they are used >>> for theming so that there is no point in wrapping them. Does this currently >>> hold? >>> >> Probably not. >> >> >>> IMO there is no such difference between properties and child properties. >>> >> A child property is just a property of a container's child, such as it's >> alignment or whether it should expand, I think. I'm sure they are >> useful, if we can find a nice API for it. But it might not be necessary >> to use the generic property API. Maybe all the functions do what we need >> already. I don't know. >> >> > See also this 10 year old bug report: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140515 > _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
