On 13 February 2017 at 11:19, Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is gobject-introspection unmaintained? It's not heavily maintained, but it's not unmaintained either. > I found a github reposity at > > https://github.com/GNOME/gobject-introspection The GitHub GNOME organization is a mirror. The canonical repositories for GNOME projects are hosted on git.gnome.org > but the issue tracker is disabled. Because GNOME uses Bugzilla, not GitHub issues: https://bugzilla.gnome.org > As you may know, I have done some work on a higher level GTK Nim > wrapper recently. Starting with the API docs > https://developer.gnome.org/gi/1.50/index.html > was a bit hard at first, but then I made indeed some good progress. > > But of course the unconfirmed bugs like missing broken bitfield support > may generate trouble? > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-list/2017-February/msg00014.html > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/python-hackers-list/2016-September/msg00002.html > > Well, bitfields and the other strange points like > g_enum_info_get_method() or g_base_info_iterate_attributes () may be > not a serious problem. But I am asking myself if gobject-introspection > may work for GTK 4 at all? You have to separate GObject Introspection — the project that hosts the XML and typelib generators and API to inspect the contents of both; and "introspection-based language bindings", like PyGObject. In general, the girepository API is driven by the needs of language bindings. Assuming that you don't break existing bindings, and that you don't break the binary format on disk, changes are still welcome. Ciao, Emmanuele. -- https://www.bassi.io [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
