Am 24.09.2015 um 23:42 schrieb Colomban Wendling:
The separate API allows to do the registration in the plugin's init(), and have the file extensions deppend on plugin configuration. Also a API-wise separattion to geany_plugin_register() is needed to allow for nested proxies.I get that, my point was that I would find the API less odd if one filled a specific structure, rather than one already used for something else.
e.g.
Proxy proxy = { .extensions = {"so",NULL }, .load = my_load, .probe = my_probe, .unload = my_unload }; geany_plugin_register_proxy(plugin, &proxy);
Wait a minute, for the new_hooks you convinced me that *this* method flawed (due to the points you mentioned) and now you're trying to sell it to me? I'm confused.
The way I implemented aimed to be consistent with the just-merged new_hooks and other stuff and doesn't have extensibility problems.
Best regards
--- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/629#issuecomment-143059222