Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:19:37 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> >said: > >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 02:52:14 +0900 (KST) ChunEon Park ><her...@naver.com> >> wrote: >> >> > There is no way to add resize callback to the object item at this >> > moment. >> > >> > And sure, this api can be dangerous if app uses it incorrectly. >> >> C can be dangerous if app uses it incorrectly. It's well known for >it >> in fact. B-) >> >> Safety is for high level languages. C is for people that want or >need >> to get their hands on nasty low level details. I really don't think >> much effort should be spent on protecting C coders from themselves, >at >> the expense of making it hard to do stuff. >> >> This is just a general principle though, I've not looked at the API >in >> question. > >i used to think that... but in the past 4 years or so... reality has >changed my >mind on this. :) > >p.s. > >just to set the record - efl, even back to imlib2 and imlib2 has always >had a >habit of "assuming programmer is dumb and pick up the pieces for them" >- that's >why there was always a cache... assume programmer will be dumb and load >1 image >100 times, so go de-duplicate on load for them by matching file path >keys >etc. ... and keep images around for a bit in case needed again soon - >this >allows a certain amount of laziness for the programmer - early on that >was me - >to just be dumb and know the lib will be smart for them. but this is a >different kind of "protection". it's assuming a programmer is lazy and >will do >the lazy thing... so make up for it, but the core principle is the same >- >assume programmer will be bad and save them from themselves. :) > >-- >------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" >-------------- >The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! >Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft >technologies >and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step >tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! >http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >_______________________________________________ >enlightenment-devel mailing list >enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
So if we're keen on safety checks and coddling bad programmers, can we start adding safety checks to some functions like elm_popup_add to make them always return NULL? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
