Hi, I don’t want to bore you, but anyways, do you have any comments on this? https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140515
Best regards, Juan. On 06 May 2014, at 22:25, Juan Rafael García Blanco <juanr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I managed to get GtkContainer child properties working ^^ No matter this gets > accepted or not, I’m quite happy to have dug into gtkmm internals quite > successfully :) > > I’ll attach patches soon in the bug report for you to review them. > > (I just wanted to share this with you; I know this is a pretty easy thing to > do) > > Best regards, > Juan. > > On 28 Apr 2014, at 11:01, Kjell Ahlstedt <kjell.ahlst...@bredband.net> wrote: > >> It must be possible to build glibmm without access to gtk+ or gtkmm. Gtkmm >> header files must not be included in glibmm source code. In that respect >> glibmm must be independent of gtkmm. >> >> In a weaker sense of the word, I think some dependence would be acceptable. >> E.g. gmmproc might handle a _WRAP_CHILD_PROPERTY macro, even if there are no >> child properties in glibmm. >> Something similar is done already. glibmm/tools/pm/WrapParser.pm handles >> _WRAP_CORBA_METHOD. A comment says that it's used in libbonobomm. (I don't >> know anything about it. I don't even know if it's still used.) >> M4 code specific to gtkmm should be no problem. Gtkmm already has its own m4 >> files, e.g. gtkmm/tools/m4/class_gtkobject.m4 for _CLASS_GTKOBJECT. >> >> I don't like that gmmproc uses both Python, Perl and M4. No one knows all >> three well. I dislike m4. It's a powerful text processor, but it's very >> different from any other programming language that I've used. I wouldn't >> mind if you write all new gmmproc code in Perl. But that's just my personal >> opinion. >> >> Kjell >> >> 2014-04-26 13:51, Juan Rafael García Blanco skrev: >>> 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. >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
