Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 8, 2021. It is now read-only.

Rename gtk::SelectionData::get_data _with_length() to gtk::SelectionData::get_data() #746

Closed
jsparber opened this issue Dec 16, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@jsparber
Copy link
Contributor

In the C bindings this function got renamed https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/gtk3-Selections.html#gtk-selection-data-get-data-with-length

@EPashkin
Copy link
Member

In your Gtk-3.0.gir
<method name="get_data_with_length" c:identifier="gtk_selection_data_get_data_with_length" shadows="get_data" version="3.0">
seems we need support shadows, maybe with ignoring functions with shadowed-by

@jsparber
Copy link
Contributor Author

maybe we could just ignore shadows and generated shadowed-by

@EPashkin
Copy link
Member

IMHO you wrong
gtk_selection_data_get_data don't provide length, so we can't ignore gtk_selection_data_get_data_with_length but need to rename it to get_data in your rust binding.

@jsparber
Copy link
Contributor Author

i just saw that https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/gtk3-Selections.html#gtk-selection-data-get-data is set to skip, not really sure why

@sdroege
Copy link
Member

sdroege commented Dec 16, 2018

You all seem to be a bit confused :) What happened here is that the get_data_with_length() was added after get_data(), and the new function (get_data_with_length()) is supposed to be a replacement of the old function and inside bindings it should be renamed to be get_data() (i.e. get_data_with_length() from C would be called from our get_data() function).

That's what the rename-to annotation is about.

@sdroege
Copy link
Member

sdroege commented Dec 16, 2018

@jsparber You also mentioned that the &mut for the setter is problematic, can you file a bug about that inconsistency?

@jsparber
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sdroege oh i got that wrong, i thought it was the other way around. I will file a issue for the inconistency.

@nt8r
Copy link
Contributor

nt8r commented Sep 10, 2020

Can this be closed? #747 was already closed.

@sdroege
Copy link
Member

sdroege commented Sep 11, 2020

57b87de fixed this a long time ago, thanks for noticing :)

@sdroege sdroege closed this as completed Sep 11, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants