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 653248 - add boxed type for GMatchInfo
add boxed type for GMatchInfo
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: glib
Classification: Platform
Component: gregex
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: gtkdev
gtkdev
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-06-23 16:31 UTC by Christian Persch
Modified: 2011-06-23 23:04 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch (7.97 KB, patch)
2011-06-23 16:42 UTC, Christian Persch
reviewed Details | Review

Description Christian Persch 2011-06-23 16:31:10 UTC
To make it bindable; see bug 653005.
Comment 1 Christian Persch 2011-06-23 16:42:06 UTC
Created attachment 190516 [details] [review]
patch
Comment 2 Colin Walters 2011-06-23 21:36:05 UTC
Review of attachment 190516 [details] [review]:

One minor comment, otherwise looks fine.

::: glib/gregex.c
@@ +623,3 @@
+ * to zero, it frees all the memory associated with the match_info structure.
+ *
+ * Since: 2.14

Consider deprecating _free() in favor of _unref() ?  You could change the doc comment to point to there too instead of duplicating it.
Comment 3 Christian Persch 2011-06-23 21:52:42 UTC
I thought about deprecating _free(), but I'd feel a bit bad to impose extra code churn on its users just for basically renaming a function... Also, _free() is NULL-safe (not sure that's actually used anywhere, but since it was, I kept it that way), and a NULL-safe _unref() would be weird.
Comment 4 Colin Walters 2011-06-23 22:12:53 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I thought about deprecating _free(), but I'd feel a bit bad to impose extra
> code churn on its users just for basically renaming a function... Also, _free()
> is NULL-safe (not sure that's actually used anywhere, but since it was, I kept
> it that way), and a NULL-safe _unref() would be weird.

Ok, fair enough; just raising the question.  Feel free to commit then!
Comment 5 Christian Persch 2011-06-23 23:04:52 UTC
Pushed to master after changing the docs to _free() to point to _unref(). Thanks for the quick review and approval!