Re: Need new name for connect_object()

I have a feeling everything's pretty much on hold apart from 'rough sketches/ideas' until we all get to meet up in Amsterdam - correct me if I'm wrong, guys - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Zmievski" <andrei@gravitonic.com> To: "Steph" <steph@zend.com> Cc: "PHP-GTK Dev" <php-gtk-dev@lists.php.net>; "Madeleine D." <mmdrake@bctonline.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-GTK-DEV] Need new name for connect_object() > Considering that the first iteration of PHP-GTK was half-assed anyway, > I'd like to get things mostly "right" this time. > > As far as separate manuals, heck, yes. I thought Jeremy & Christian > were working on something? > > -Andrei > > On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Steph wrote: > > > Everyone's going to love that sooooooooo much :) but I think you're > > right, > > because it doesn't look as if there's going to be a lot of > > BC-friendliness > > here anyway. > > > > Which brings us back to the question of separate manuals... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrei Zmievski" <andrei@gravitonic.com> > > To: "Madeleine D." <mmdrake@bctonline.com> > > Cc: "PHP-GTK Dev" <php-gtk-dev@lists.php.net> > > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:40 PM > > Subject: Re: [PHP-GTK-DEV] Need new name for connect_object() > > > > > >> Note that none of the ones I proposed have the current behavior of > >> connect_object(), actually. I'd like to deprecate that method > >> completely and make people use the new three. > >> > >> -Andrei > >> > >> On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Madeleine D. wrote: > >> > >>> A - > >>> > >>> I see your point. I've never had a call yet to come up with the > >>> simple > >>> version, so I didn't even think of it. But, based on the past few > >>> months, > >>> it's probably out there, waiting, in my future. > >>> > >>> So, I guess my vote would be for 3 different ones - for clarity's > >>> sake. > >>> > >>> Madeleine D. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 01:02 PM 3/21/05 -0800, you wrote: > >>>> Not really. What it does currently is "omit" the signal object, > >>>> passes > >>>> the rest of parameters, adding on the user specified-ones at the > >>>> end. > >>>> So, if originally the parameters to be passed were ($signal_widget, > >>>> $col, $row), and we connect it as: > >>>> > >>>> $w->connect_object('foo', 'myfoo', $myobj); > >>>> > >>>> the parameters it'll pass are ($col, $row, $myobj). > >>>> > >>>> I guess what I am asking is whether this behavior is useful at all, > >>>> or > >>>> if we would rather really substitute the user specified object > >>>> instead > >>>> of the signal one, or not pass any signal parameters at all, or > >>>> what. > >>>> Or maybe have a connection function for all three cases: > >>>> > >>>> 1) connect normally: pass signal widget plus additional > >>>> signal-specific > >>>> parameters > >>>> 2) connect replace: substitute user-specified object instead of the > >>>> signal one, and pass additional signal-specific parameters > >>>> 3) connect simple: pass only user specified parameters > >>>> > >>>> -Andrei > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Madeleine D. wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I'm probably being too simplistic here, but what about > >>>>> > >>>>> connect_other() > >>>>> > >>>>> since it does the same things as connect, including parms, but it > >>>>> does > >>>>> it > >>>>> for another object. > >>>>> > >>>>> Madeleine D. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> -- > >> PHP-GTK Development Mailing List (http://gtk.php.net/) > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >> > > -- > PHP-GTK Development Mailing List (http://gtk.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >