> In fact, I am still
> a bit confused why an API breakage in these early years of wayland is
> considered such a big deal, compared with a daily struggle of not
> having sufficient typing information.
Same here
To pq:
If an request specifies how unknown enum values should be handled, it just
sp
About the 2 ways of adding an enum:
The user can always specify an error handler to handle unknown values. The
error handle can then handle the error value, or unknown value.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:05 Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:11:32 +
> Jeroen Bollen wrote:
>
> I think that totally depends on how the interface is specified. This
> applies only to one of the two ways an can grow.
What other way can it grow? It can only grow bigger. If the application
isn't aware of new values added, it should output a warning or an error.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:05 Bil
patibility issues will arise
with exciting binding generators.
In any case, I think the specification should be as strict as possible,
because making it stricter is hard, but making it less strict is easy.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 at 20:59 Bill Spitzak wrote:
>
>
> On 04/23/2015 11:28
> Using enum="interfacename.enumname" would probably work. The
> "interfacename." is optional if you are describing a method on the same
> interface. Another possibility is to just add interface="interfacename"
> to the argument along with enum="enumname".
The second possibility wouldn't work for
Hello,
I do think that docenum and enum should be split up. I don't really get the
purpose of docenum though. Even if an enum can be extended, that extension
would technically be an extension to the protocol, would it not?
> Completeness of enums is information that can be encoded in strongly
> t
15:54:59 +
> Jeroen Bollen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 at 09:03 Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, adding the strict type information to the XML spec has no benefit
> > > for C, which is the de facto language for Wayland core developers. A C
&
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 at 09:03 Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> Also, adding the strict type information to the XML spec has no benefit
> for C, which is the de facto language for Wayland core developers. A C
> compiler also does not raise errors if you violate the rules. This and
> all the above are the l
languages. How have you fixed the issue? Are there patched versions
available, and maybe pending to be merged? I have looked around a bit, and
didn't find anything, but then again, I'm not familiar with Wayland
development. (This is the first time I use a mailing list!)
Much appreciated,
Jer
