On 08/29/2015 10:53 AM, LRN wrote: > On 29.08.2015 11:46, Florian Pelz wrote: >> On 08/29/2015 10:39 AM, Jean-Marie Delapierre wrote: >>> I have explained (I hope in a clear way, but I begin to doubt about it) >>> that the unions I suggest only own pointers, not child objects as you >>> say in your answer. >> >> I think it is clear, but you still need to declare one such union for >> each class. > > Union-pointers sound like a neat trick. > > Can't you generate headers with these union-pointer declarations > automatically, using gobject introspection? > I don't like requiring an additional tool for building. It also makes the inner workings less transparent than using only the C high-level assembler with macros. I don't think you can do the declaration conveniently without additional tools, i.e. just a C preprocessor and compiler. > I'm also not sure what are the ABI implications. Are unions compile-time > only? I guess you'd only change a pointer-union if the class hierarchy of > its corresponding widget class changes, which sounds like a good excuse to > recompile anyway... > ABI-wise, unions don't make a difference. But: If you use a library that uses a class that inherits from a GTK class and the GTK class starts implementing a new interface, you'd need to recompile the library's header files. _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
