After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 646860 - Make style provider priority introspectable
Make style provider priority introspectable
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: .General
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-04-05 21:56 UTC by jessevdk@gmail.com
Modified: 2014-05-22 16:22 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description jessevdk@gmail.com 2011-04-05 21:56:00 UTC 
It would be nice of GTK_STYLE_PROVIDER_PRIORITY_... were introspectable. I would guess that this requires an enum instead of defines? There is probably a good reason why these are defines, but it would still be cool to have these constants available in other languages.
Comment 1 jessevdk@gmail.com 2014-05-22 08:55:51 UTC 
Can I at least get a reason?
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2014-05-22 13:40:09 UTC 
its just a number, really
Comment 3 Emmanuele Bassi (:ebassi) 2014-05-22 14:26:42 UTC 
GTK_STYLE_PROVIDER_PRIORITY_... are introspectable already: after all, they do appear in the GIR file generate by GTK+, and are usable by introspection-based language bindings.

what Jesse may mean is that you'd like these to conform to an enumeration type, e.g. Gtk.StyleProviderPriority.APPLICATION. I do agree with Matthias, though: I think it's just syntactic sugar, and I don't think it's worth adding another enumeration type for them.
Comment 4 jessevdk@gmail.com 2014-05-22 16:22:20 UTC 
Actually, I didn't know that they were exposed in the gir by now, as constants. That works for me. I do wonder why these need to be defines, which seems like an anti-pattern for gtk+ to me, but oh well.