Re: Constructor semantics

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Christian Weiske wrote: > I see only one problem: What if a constructor really needs only an array > of, lets say titles as first parameter? How to distinguish between > normal an option-based invocation? The property-based constructors are meant only for simple values. A constructor such as GtkClist one will surely be overriden by a custom implementation. > If that would be no problem, then I think it is a nice-to-have. If it's just nice-to-have, I am not sure I want to invest time it right now. I'll just go ahead and implement positional parameters first. > That would be the oo way. Java does the same AFAIK. +1 from me. > Just now there is the problem that old program would run even if one > assignment failed, here you'd need to catch the exceptions or the prog dies. Right. Before we had warnings, but I think failure to create an object is serious enough. > PS: Andrei, just something for the > "the-doc-people-would-like-to-have-it" list: > It would help very very very much if there would be a glade function > which connects all signals defined in the glade to functions of an > OBJECT. In php-gtk1 there are only functions which connect the signals > assigned to functions in the glade file to objectless functions - that's > not very oo. Sure, I'll see what's possible, but that's after main stuff is implemented in PHP-GTK 2. -Andrei * Think digital, act analog. *