[Gtk-sharp-list] Interface Name Patch
Wed, 26 May 2004 17:54:08 -0700
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 15:30, Todd Berman wrote:
> Breaking this much code for no appreciable gain to me seems to make
> little to no sense. I don't think a user type should ever implement a
> GInterface directly, as it just wont work the way you want it to (yet,
> maybe later). Therefore giving it the preceding I gives you no API
> clarity, and just breaks almost every single Gtk# app in existence. For
> what point?
No API clarity? It's one of the best things you can do with C# to
improve API clarity. When declaring what classes/interfaces a new class
inherits from, it can become an annoying job to figure out if one is
inheriting from an interface or class. Of course, if a user would never
need to implement one, then why are they public?
> If Gtk# is rough around the edges only because we dont have an I in
> front of interfaces that you should *never* implement directly then I
> would say our job here is done, and we can pack up and go home early.
Well, not 'only' because of it, but that's the issue I decided to argue
about today. Actually, it looks like most of my gripes have been fixed
already, so erm... never mind.
> Basically, you should treat these interfaces as abstract classes, not
> And believe it or not, existing gtk+ developers moving to gtk# are one
> of the prime targets of gtk#.
The inconsistency is the annoying bit. Why does ITreeNode have the
preceding I, for instance?
Samuel Kaufman <email@example.com>