On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:15:26 +0000 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> said:
> Hi, > > This is now well documented ( > https://www.enlightenment.org/develop/tutorials/c/eo-refcount.md) but the > more I use efl_add the more I feel it is confusing especially to new > developers. > > In the current model (if I understand it correctly) > 1) child = efl_add(klass, parent) means the child must NOT be unfeferenced > 2) child = efl_add(klass, NULL) means the child should be unreferenced > 3) child = efl_add_ref(klass, parent) means the child must be unreferenced > 4) child = efl_add_ref(klass, NULL) somehow means that the child should be > unreferenced twice #4 smells like a bug... 1 is intended. > In my opinion 1) and 4) are peculiar and so I provide a proposal to fix > this: > > We could change efl_add to return void. It never retains a reference. If > the parent is NULL then it should be automatically unref before returning. > Then efl_add_ref would be changed to mirror this and always retain exactly > 1 reference - so if parent is NULL there is no double count returned. umm... then you are saying efl_add_ref() is exactly the same as efl_add() today. what does this help? and the shorter efl_add now returns nothing so i can't use the return to usefully access the things i created later on like add callbacks to it, change the label of a button, delete a window, or use it as a parent for further adds which is like THE most common use case around when building a ui for example (create box, then create a button and pack button into box. i need the box to be able to do that). unless i use efl_add_ref which si the same thing as efl_add now. > Using this model if an Eo * is returned then I know I have a reference and > must later unref. > Any need for using the pointer in an efl_add (which is no longer returned) > would still be supported through efl_added within the constructor. if efl_add_ref returns an obj with only 1 reference, then this is wrong above. if parent is NULL, yes you'd have to unref/del. if parent is not null then there is still only 1 ref and it belongs to the parent object. so > What do people think about this? I put the suggestion forward to improve > the symettry with add and unref which is currently confusing. If my > assumptions above are incorrect please let me know! > > Thanks, > Andy > -- > http://andywilliams.me > http://ajwillia.ms > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
