Re: LablGL and LablGtk packages are in master incoming.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:58:57PM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:25:28 +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Will be doing it if you need them, but not before the first package i made
> > reach the main debian archive, once that is done, upgrading will be a lot
> > easier.
>
> No problem for that.
>
> > Erm, ...
> >
> > What are these .h files for, and how exactly do you use them for adding new
> > widgets ?
>
> A very stupid example: my widget takes in input two Gtk Adjustments.
> So, in the .c file of the binding of my widget, I need a function
> (a macro) to go from an OCaml val to a GtkAdjustment and the other
> way around. These macro are defined in the .h files (that are
> not installed now) or directly in the .c files (very bad habit).
> Example:
Ok, i see that now, ...
let's put them in a -dev package, what do you think ?
ideally, my c2caml tool should be able to regenerate them automatically ...
> #define GtkAdjustment_val(val) check_cast(GTK_ADJUSTMENT,val)
>
> Obviously I can redefine the macros in my binding, but this is, IMHO,
> the wrong way to proceed. And then, what if I want to call a
> method of an Adjustment in the C code of the binding?
>
> Note also that, sometimes, LablGtk uses heavily boxing for the
> pointers and then the macros are no more simple casts, but
> functions to box/unbox values.
Yea, i am familiar with this, like transforming a enum into a list of flags ?
> A last example is with polimorfic variants constructors: in the .h
> files I should find the C #definition for the constructors to use
> them in my bindings. Otherwise, I have to recompute them in my code.
They are auto generated by the var2xxx stuff, isn't it ?
> So I think that the first step is to install also the .h and the
> second one is to convince Garrigue that they must be completed/rewritten.
> But this is unrelated to packaging.
Ok, will do, could you tell me exactly what you need as .h, and i will but
then into the package.
Friendlym
Sven Luther
Reply to: