On 9/18/07, Caio Marcelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Snippet from previous conversation: > > > > > 4) etk_signal_stop() and _etk_signal_emitted_signals > > > So we could enhance ETK by having accumulator to return a boolean > > whenever it should stop or continue, then we could handle this "AND" > > case correctly and vanish with etk_signal_stop(), the source of > > problems :-P > > I've made a patch to make Etk work like that. Changed some signals to > use a marshaller for bool returning functions and used that return > value in the callbacks for the "STOP" signalling. Signals that need to > be stopped also use an accumulator called > "etk_accumulator_stopping_or", so the first one that returns ETK_TRUE, > we stop the emission. > > Accumulators now return Etk_Bool, which is the "true" way they control > if the emission stops or not, so it's possible to come up with more > elaborated rules for stopping emission if needed. > > I've changed only the signals that had callbacks using > etk_signal_stop(), but may be interesting to change more (maybe all?).
Looks fine and implements exactly the initial idea that we've discussed with Moom. May I commit it? PS: It would be good to have an account for Caio. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -------------------------------------- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 17249123 Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
