So I'm still a bit confused about where the underscores are turned into
dashes.
property names: (yes)
- registering a property
- getting a property
- setting a property
signal names: (no?)
- registering a signal
- emitting a signal
- registering a signal callback
signal details: (no)
- emitting a signal detail
- registering a signal callback
One doesn't register signal details anywhere does one?
I recognise that you want to stay backwards compatible, but that you
also want to be as regular as possible. So my argument is for something
regular and expected.
I would argue that: signal -> no, property -> yes, is simpler than
signal name -> yes, signal detail -> no, property -> yes. Cause it is
more rules and property names sometimes get put into signal details and
so then even this simple statement of the rules is wrong. So I ask,
whose code would break if it was: signal -> yes, property -> yes? By
signal -> yes I mean that both signal names and signal details have
underscores converted to dashes, and by property -> yes I mean that
property names have underscores converted to dashes.
For someones code to break from signal -> yes, property -> yes, they
would have to have details with both underscores and dashes that needed
to be distinguished. Who would need such a thing?
regards,
Richard.
_______________________________________________
gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
