This is the mail archive of the
guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Guile's libglade vs. Python's (was Re: [OT?] libglade, guile-gtkand glade-xml-signal-autoconnect)
- From: Eric at pretzelnet dot org, Gillespie at pretzelnet dot org,Jr. <epg at pretzelnet dot org>
- To: guile-gtk at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:44:13 -0500
- Subject: Guile's libglade vs. Python's (was Re: [OT?] libglade, guile-gtkand glade-xml-signal-autoconnect)
- References: <15446.63587.961296.439727@minos.phy.bnl.gov><1012398677.1247.62.camel@flophouse><15448.2600.646593.129325@minos.phy.bnl.gov><1012408302.1300.129.camel@flophouse>
(I'm posting this to guile-gtk on a hunch that this is the right place
to discuss the Guile libglade bindings; i couldn't find any
guile-libglade list).
Bill Gribble <grib@linuxdevel.com> writes:
> It would be nice to have a way to specify that the function name
> is Scheme rather than C. Since libglade seems to silently drop
> things that don't map to C functions, you could have a naming
> convention that signal handlers starting with scm: are treated
> as Scheme functions and invoked via a wrapper. autoconnect
> could be wrapped with a little test that makes those
> connections.
And in a later message:
> That's what I'm saying. glade-xml-signal-autoconnect is just a
> wrapper that calls glade_xml_signal_autoconnect, which means
> that only C function bindings are looked for.
The wrapper is what the Python bindings do, i think. Having
autoconnect not working like the user expects is probably a bad idea.
Can this be fixed in a future release? Maybe i'll find the time to
make a patch...
--
Eric Gillespie, Jr. <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
"When everyone has to reinvent the wheel, many people invent
square wheels."