Guile's libglade vs. Python's (was Re: [OT?] libglade, guile-gtk and glade-xml-signal-autoconnect)

Guile's libglade vs. Python's (was Re: [OT?] libglade, guile-gtk and glade-xml-signal-autoconnect)

[Eric, Gillespie, Jr.]

(I'm posting this to guile-gtk on a hunch that this is the right place
to discuss the Guile libglade bindings; i couldn't find any
guile-libglade list).

Bill Gribble <grib@linuxdevel.com> writes:

    > It would be nice to have a way to specify that the function name
    > is Scheme rather than C.  Since libglade seems to silently drop
    > things that don't map to C functions, you could have a naming
    > convention that signal handlers starting with scm: are treated
    > as Scheme functions and invoked via a wrapper.  autoconnect
    > could be wrapped with a little test that makes those
    > connections.

And in a later message:

    > That's what I'm saying.  glade-xml-signal-autoconnect is just a
    > wrapper that calls glade_xml_signal_autoconnect, which means
    > that only C function bindings are looked for.

The wrapper is what the Python bindings do, i think.  Having
autoconnect not working like the user expects is probably a bad idea.
Can this be fixed in a future release?  Maybe i'll find the time to
make a patch...

-- 
Eric Gillespie, Jr. <*> epg@pretzelnet.org

"When everyone has to reinvent the wheel, many people invent
 square wheels."