| 1 |
<okibisan> hey JJR |
|---|
| 2 |
<_JJR_> hello, okibisan |
|---|
| 3 |
<okibisan> how do you feel about ticket 21? |
|---|
| 4 |
<okibisan> note my comment on the last post |
|---|
| 5 |
<_JJR_> is that the one on Error? |
|---|
| 6 |
<okibisan> renaming ErrorG, yes |
|---|
| 7 |
<_JJR_> I'll have to have a look again |
|---|
| 8 |
<okibisan> Mike wants to rename the D classes to GError, while renaming the structs to ErrorG |
|---|
| 9 |
<okibisan> it sounded good at first, but I don't think I want to implement it that way |
|---|
| 10 |
<okibisan> I'd much rather leave the structs as GError |
|---|
| 11 |
<_JJR_> the gtk structs? |
|---|
| 12 |
<okibisan> yes |
|---|
| 13 |
<_JJR_> I'm going to read through the comments again |
|---|
| 14 |
<okibisan> let me know what you think |
|---|
| 15 |
<okibisan> i'm trying to implement a change at the moment |
|---|
| 16 |
<okibisan> I'd like to go with DError and DObject for the classes |
|---|
| 17 |
<okibisan> and just go across the board |
|---|
| 18 |
<okibisan> no other wrappings use GError |
|---|
| 19 |
<okibisan> they typically use Error, correct? |
|---|
| 20 |
<okibisan> DError almost goes to show it's the error on the D wrapping level |
|---|
| 21 |
<_JJR_> that appears to be what my original comment says :) |
|---|
| 22 |
<_JJR_> I can't remember where I saw that, though |
|---|
| 23 |
<okibisan> i know |
|---|
| 24 |
<_JJR_> I think I may have been looking at the C# bindings |
|---|
| 25 |
<_JJR_> and maybe the python bindings |
|---|
| 26 |
<okibisan> i looked into a few, and they don't use GError |
|---|
| 27 |
<okibisan> so you can't really use the argument that it's what is typically done |
|---|
| 28 |
<_JJR_> so GError is the struct name in gtk? |
|---|
| 29 |
<okibisan> yes |
|---|
| 30 |
<okibisan> so what do you think? |
|---|
| 31 |
<_JJR_> hmm... still reading |
|---|
| 32 |
<okibisan> ok, sorry |
|---|
| 33 |
<_JJR_> did you discuss this with mike very much? |
|---|
| 34 |
<okibisan> haven't had a chance |
|---|
| 35 |
<okibisan> he doesn't get on the chatroom |
|---|
| 36 |
<_JJR_> he hasn't been in here, i guess? |
|---|
| 37 |
<_JJR_> hmmm |
|---|
| 38 |
<okibisan> hasn't replied to the comments yet |
|---|
| 39 |
<_JJR_> The problem I see with DError is consistancy |
|---|
| 40 |
<_JJR_> none of the other gtk or glib classes are prefixed with D |
|---|
| 41 |
<_JJR_> so why these ones? |
|---|
| 42 |
<_JJR_> If I understand Mikes idea correctly, was that just to rename the gtk struct from GError to ErrorG and the classes ErrorG to GError? |
|---|
| 43 |
<okibisan> yes |
|---|
| 44 |
<okibisan> i just don't really like the idea of changing the struct |
|---|
| 45 |
<_JJR_> yes, I can understand that |
|---|
| 46 |
<okibisan> so, you just don't like having Object and Erro prefixed with a D? |
|---|
| 47 |
<okibisan> Error* |
|---|
| 48 |
<_JJR_> It appears that gtkd isn't completely wrapping everything either |
|---|
| 49 |
<okibisan> hmmm |
|---|
| 50 |
<okibisan> that's true |
|---|
| 51 |
<_JJR_> many of the gtkd classes merely return gtk structs |
|---|
| 52 |
<_JJR_> so it becomes a little confusing how far one goes to hide gtk |
|---|
| 53 |
<_JJR_> the D prefix? |
|---|
| 54 |
<_JJR_> well... |
|---|
| 55 |
<_JJR_> it just seems a little strange |
|---|
| 56 |
<okibisan> i really don't have a problem with ErrorG, though |
|---|
| 57 |
<_JJR_> the original? |
|---|
| 58 |
<okibisan> yeah |
|---|
| 59 |
<okibisan> it's fine with me |
|---|
| 60 |
<okibisan> just seems like nit-picking to me |
|---|
| 61 |
<okibisan> :/ |
|---|
| 62 |
<_JJR_> to me it was just ugly.... but that was just my opinion. If there's no "good" solution, than I can understand leaving it |
|---|
| 63 |
<okibisan> there's plenty of "good" solutions, but none that are really "better" |
|---|
| 64 |
<_JJR_> and... I'm not contributing in any major way to gtkd... so if nobody else really cares... maybe it would be better just to drop the ticket |
|---|
| 65 |
<_JJR_> but I guess it would be best for you and mike to decide that |
|---|
| 66 |
<okibisan> again, that would be perfectly fine with me |
|---|
| 67 |
<okibisan> which is what i wanted to talk to mike about |
|---|
| 68 |
<okibisan> i kep dropping the hint for him to join the chatroom... |
|---|
| 69 |
<_JJR_> :) |
|---|
| 70 |
<okibisan> keep* |
|---|
| 71 |
<okibisan> hell, we even have the webpage to chat |
|---|
| 72 |
<okibisan> there's no excuse :) |
|---|
| 73 |
<_JJR_> hehe |
|---|
| 74 |
<okibisan> if mike doesn't care, i guess we'll dropTHE TICKET |
|---|
| 75 |
<okibisan> don't know how i hit caps... |
|---|
| 76 |
<okibisan> lol |
|---|
| 77 |
<_JJR_> he he |
|---|
| 78 |
<_JJR_> yep, I guess you may as well... |
|---|
| 79 |
<okibisan> i really doubt he cares |
|---|
| 80 |
<okibisan> by the looks of his comments, that is |
|---|
| 81 |
<_JJR_> no... it probably is just because it's there that the discussion came up |
|---|
| 82 |
<_JJR_> you can hit me for that :) |
|---|
| 83 |
<_JJR_> I don't know... |
|---|
| 84 |
<_JJR_> does he have an email address? |
|---|
| 85 |
<_JJR_> you could send him a PM through dsource |
|---|
| 86 |
<okibisan> Saturday afternoon or Sunday evening? ( CEST (UTC+2) ) |
|---|
| 87 |
<okibisan> that is when mike was gonna get on the chat |
|---|
| 88 |
<okibisan> last post of ticket 3 |
|---|
| 89 |
<_JJR_> oh... |
|---|
| 90 |
<okibisan> i just noticed that |
|---|
| 91 |
<okibisan> i don't understand where everyone went regarding ticket 3 |
|---|
| 92 |
<okibisan> we implmented a change, people said we should do more, and then it died down... |
|---|
| 93 |
<okibisan> seems like most people left gtkd dev |
|---|
| 94 |
<_JJR_> it does look like it quite of dwindled |
|---|
| 95 |
<_JJR_> *kind |
|---|
| 96 |
<_JJR_> hmm... |
|---|
| 97 |
<okibisan> so, is the change "good enough" |
|---|
| 98 |
<_JJR_> there could be a way to liven it up |
|---|
| 99 |
<okibisan> i'm looking towards an RC releasse |
|---|
| 100 |
<okibisan> what do you mean? |
|---|
| 101 |
<_JJR_> well... more announce posts for RC's and updates to gtkd |
|---|
| 102 |
<_JJR_> and maybe some discussion in the dwt newsgroup which is supposed to be open for all gui toolkits |
|---|
| 103 |
<_JJR_> that may attract a broader audience |
|---|
| 104 |
<okibisan> i plan on announcing once we get an RC out |
|---|
| 105 |
<_JJR_> that'd be good |
|---|
| 106 |
<okibisan> it's a good pushing point |
|---|
| 107 |
<okibisan> however, what do we need to do to get to RC1? |
|---|
| 108 |
<okibisan> notice i have 2 versions set up.... 1.0 and 2.0 |
|---|
| 109 |
<okibisan> check the roadmap for details |
|---|
| 110 |
<okibisan> 1.0 is the initial "this is how we wrapped gtk in d" and 2.0 is "this is how everything should be done according tto the community" more or less |
|---|
| 111 |
<_JJR_> yes, I see |
|---|
| 112 |
<_JJR_> ok |
|---|
| 113 |
<okibisan> get a fully working copy out, and then let them make the community release |
|---|
| 114 |
<_JJR_> yeah, looks good |
|---|
| 115 |
<_JJR_> just need a solid release |
|---|
| 116 |
<okibisan> yep |
|---|
| 117 |
<_JJR_> Mike seems to have been steadily fixing a few things over the last few months |
|---|
| 118 |
<okibisan> and the ErrorG ticket "could" be moved to 2.0... |
|---|
| 119 |
<okibisan> yes, he's been very good about that |
|---|
| 120 |
<_JJR_> hopefully can connect with him to get this out the door |
|---|
| 121 |
<_JJR_> yes, or removed |
|---|
| 122 |
<okibisan> yeah, either or |
|---|
| 123 |
<_JJR_> (still don't like ErrorG :) ) |
|---|
| 124 |
<okibisan> heh |
|---|
| 125 |
<_JJR_> but oh well... I'm good at being nit-picky :) |
|---|
| 126 |
<okibisan> lol |
|---|
| 127 |
<okibisan> well if you don't like, we can change it, but do we NEED to? |
|---|
| 128 |
<_JJR_> no, I doubt it :) |
|---|
| 129 |
<okibisan> you know, it's not that i want to rush everything. it just looks a hell of a lot better when you have a release if you expect people to use it, regardless of how stable it it |
|---|
| 130 |
<_JJR_> agreed |
|---|
| 131 |
<okibisan> saying "check the svn" tends to scream "hey, we're ALPHA!!!" |
|---|
| 132 |
<_JJR_> that's true... |
|---|
| 133 |
<_JJR_> "release" is a marketing statement |
|---|
| 134 |
<okibisan> anyway... |
|---|
| 135 |
<okibisan> yes, more so than anything |
|---|
| 136 |
<_JJR_> but an important one at that |
|---|
