On 24/08/16 16:52, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:19 AM, <marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de> wrote: > >>> i agree - it is "self" within that context. within an eo_add() only. it's >>> not >>> used anywhere else (or to be used). efl_self is simple and fairly obvious as >>> what it implies - you just need to learn the "it is only used in this >>> context". >>> if we rename it will it change this at all? i doubt it. it'll be harder to >>> DISCOVER but people may still be as confused as to why we renamed it >>> something >>> else than "self" or "this". >> >> As i said in the other mail, its NOT simple and fairly obvious, eo_add >> does NOT open a new scope where it is obvious that now the just added >> object is self. It still looks like you are in the scope of your calling >> function. And so self there is missleading. >> >> And of course someone who wants to use the api should learn the api. But >> why making it harder by naming things in a way that the api can be >> confusing? >> >> Also its not harder to discover a other name its still in the same >> place, the reason why it should be not be self or this is more that its >> different and can be missunderstood. > > I don't like that efl_self is a macro. It is completely unnecessary for it > to be a macro.
You are wrong. I'd expand on it, but the code is there, just read it. > > On the naming issue: I think there's too much magic on eo_add, I > liked the older passing a pointer to the actual object better. But > I was the only one. > I already replied to Gustavo about why this magic is useful. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
