Fw: [PHP-GTK-DEV] Re: [PHP-GTK] ext/libglade complete?
| From: | Steph Fox | Date: | Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:19:11 +0000 |
| Subject: | Fw: [PHP-GTK-DEV] Re: [PHP-GTK] ext/libglade complete? | ||
| Groups: | php.gtk.dev | ||
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-gtk-dev+get-2013@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> > Is there precedence for 'MyApp::callback' syntax? If you are not
> > happy about having a separate signal_autoconnect_object() method, it
> > wouldn't be that hard to modify signal_autoconnect() to check whether
> > it got an object instance as the first parameter, and if so, hook up
> > the callbacks to it.
> > I prefer to have a separate function because it's cleaner.
>
> Yes, I'm thinking that way now too.
Erm, wait, I just realized what you meant by that.
No, it's not cleaner, because of the way Glade works. In PHP-GTK 1, if you
set up the object to be passed in Glade it never worked, because
signal_autoconnect() didn't recognise it. This way, it does work, and
signal_autoconnect() caters for four separate kinds of signals. Its only
problems are a) passing data and b) connecting to a callback defined within
a class, non-statically.
I think it would be sensible to have a separate function that passed an
object as first parameter if you wanted to be able to access callbacks
within that class, and data mapping as a second parameter. I don't think it
would be a good idea to call it signal_autoconnect_object() though, because
that means something other.
- Steph