[cairo] how to propose a change?

[Owen Taylor]

[ Forgot to reply to the list before, trying again ]

On 8/31/07, Travis Griggs <tgriggs at cincom.com> wrote:

> As for the path storage, I'm pretty happy with how simple the current
> code is and given that the bad win32 performance is gone now, I don't
> think we need to change it for now.
> I would like to see the two approaches compared from a language binding pov
> when it comes to iterating paths. The current path mechanism was/is very
> difficult to implement a binding for. I kind of wondered if this more
> "streaming" storage would make it easier to increment through the
> information. But I'd have to see the structure definitions in more detail to
> get a better feel for this.

Note that this discussion has little to do with cairo_path_t ... it's
about the internal representation of paths.

I'm curious to what your problem is with cairo_path_t and language
bindings... http://cairographics.org/manual/bindings-path.html gives a
pretty detailed examples of how the binding should work and makes it
explicit that you should not copy the C API. There is, for the
proposed approach, a need to write manual glue code. But if the
hypothetical "language bindable" interface exhibited there were
actually implemented, it would result in both inefficiency and poor
language mappings.

- Owen