On 08/12/11 04:43, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote: > Hello Tom, > Thanks for you fix. > > I have one question here. > I think this macro has no big benefit. > > +#define BASE(it) (&(it)->base) > > There is no much difference between "BASE(it)" and "it->base". > But there are two macros for base.view and base.widget in elm_widget.h > > #define VIEW(X) X->base.view > #define WIDGET(X) X->base.widget > > If BASE macro is necessary, the best place is elm_widget.h. > Thank you.
Dear Daniel, The reason I used BASE was because I didn't/couldn't assume the name of that structure field. doing it->base is bad, because base is never clearly stated anywhere there. Doing it in a macro/casting would have been more appropriate, that's why I chose the one option that can easily be turned to both. I didn't do anything drastic, because I don't know those changes well enough. I'd expect to have a function/macro to retrieve the "disabled" status from an Elm_Object_Item. Please think about it and decide what you think is needed to be done. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
