kevin.krammer at gmx.at
Thu Mar 22 03:34:02 PDT 2007
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:57 +0100, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:34 +0100 Kevin Krammer <kevin.krammer at gmx.at>
> > On Wednesday 21 March 2007 21:57 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:58 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > > As an alternative to a bitfield, one option is a dictionary of
> > > > properties. This is most likely nicer than a bitfield in say python,
> > > > and more annoying than a bitfield in C.
> > >
> > > Yes, a dictionary might be nice, but it's not trivial to access in C.
> > > This stuff really needs to be *trivial* for an application to access,
> > > hence why I think booleans are probably best.
> > How likely is an application written in C not going to use the D-Bus glib
> > bindings?
> > (Assuming that these bindings support dictionaries)
> hand up in this corner for starters.
I am pretty sure they do, but since I haven't used them myself yet, I thought
it would be better to word it as an assumption.
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070322/96f0840b/attachment.pgp
More information about the xdg