On Thu, 2004-26-08 at 08:14 -0400, muppet wrote: > On Aug 26, 2004, at 3:33 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > [spelling errors snipped] > > by apologizing for digressing, you're digressing. how about a footnote > or appendix instead? LOL. Its true that learning any sort of code requires a lot of parallel learning, and the structure could be better. But sometimes it helps to explain why we seem to be leaving the main point, then returning. > > jumping straight into how do derive your own base object type without > GObject, but still using GTypeInstance, is rather confusing. are you > trying to show that you should do it yourself, or that this is the hard > way to do it? remember that many people will skip the prose and jump > straight to the code, so putting the example of a Hard Way and not > necessarily the right way to do it first may be very misleading. Thats a really good point, maybe you could point out how I could make it better. When writing this I had one main goal, teach myself GObject; and two main assumptions, that each person learn differently, and there are more than one tutorial available. That is the driving reason for the way it looks. I took the route that made most sense to me: "How would I implement OO in C" and took GObject as the given answer. In that sense its perfectly logical to pursue Object Based programming (no derivation) before Object Oriented. A perfect example is your stated truism that all people will skip the prose and go straight for the code. Its just not true because thats not what I'd do. I want code *and* explanation, which is what I've given. People who just want code can look else where for far shorter examples. I tried to state as much in the wording, but perhaps I've failed. Any ideas? I am going to merge what I have with what Tiago has done, so there will be more "How do I do X" later on. Cheers, Ryan _______________________________________________ gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
