From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9101 invoked by alias); 24 May 2003 11:49:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9015 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 11:49:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imf23bis.bellsouth.net) (205.152.58.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 11:49:22 -0000 Received: from fridge ([66.157.107.230]) by imf23bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP id <20030524115134.IRBT24149.imf23bis.bellsouth.net@fridge> for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 07:51:34 -0400 Received: from lark (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by fridge with esmtp; Sat, 24 May 2003 07:49:05 -0400 Received: from wingo by lark with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19JXGm-0006HV-00 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 12:33:00 +0100 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 11:49:00 -0000 From: Andy Wingo To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: GError Message-ID: <20030524113300.GB24132@lark> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Linux lark 2.4.20 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 Hi Andreas and Kevin, Sorry I can't reply directly to the earlier emails, I was on holiday and not on the list at that point. I'd first like to thank you all for the interest in the GTK2 branch of things, especially as expressed by code. That's great! More about that in my next email. With regards to GError, I think the solution you propose is too much like C programming. Wouldn't it be nicer if, instead of forcing the programmer to know about GErrors, if we simply threw an exception if the GError is set? That would seem to me to be the more sensible alternative. We can make the load-defs code recognize the presence of a GError in the last argument position (as it always is) and then... Hmm, it's a bit of a PITA in that the desired scheme function has fewer arguments than the C function. I think that to support this fully, we would have to extend g-wrap. What do you think about this idea? And along the extending-g-wrap lines, I sent a mail to Rob Browning asking him to accept the newer gw-standard-spec.scm into the distro, but have not received a reply as of yet. Perhaps we need to try a bit harder. Anyway, do let me know what you think about all of this. regards, wingo.