On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:25:30PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> (We already discussed at length why this >> >> is needed and we are already doing it for other boolean getters so >> >> lets not have the discussion about this need, again). >> > >> > Actually this was discussed for libosinfo, not libvirt-glib, here is the >> > relevant email for those who were wondering about this discussion: >> > >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2011-November/msg00090.html >> >> Ah ok but both libraries are meant to be first-class g* citizens and >> hence the same need to follow the usual conventions unless there is a >> compelling reason not to. > > Making the C API as nice as possible to users is a very compelling reason > to me since we are writing a C library (emphasis on the "to me", I know we > disagree :) Indeed we do. :) > This naming convention for getters is probably only useful for vala, I > think bindings for dynamic languages will introspect object properties at > runtime and use g_object_get(). Well, vala will also do the same but setting properties through that is known to be considerably slower than using the getter/setter directly (because of the type checks etc invovled in case of g_object_get). >So the decision to make is between making > the API nicer to read for C users VS making life slightly easier for some > bindings. That is not the decision at all for me since I don't see anyone other than you complaining about the various gtk+ APIs following this convention. If you can cite examples of C developers complaining about it, that would be convincing argument to me. Otherwise, the decision to me is all about following a usual convention *that we already follow* and in turn make valac produce more efficient bindings vs making you happy. > Would a Rename to: annotation help vala here? Or is there some annotation I > don't know of to mark property getters/setters? Maybe? But I don't think we are that desperate yet. :) -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list