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 ppaala...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:11:32 +
Jeroen Bollen
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
I think that totally depends on how the interface is specified. This
applies only to one of the two ways an enum 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
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
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 bitfields
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 spit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 11:28 AM, Jeroen Bollen wrote:
Using enum
2015 15:54:59 +
Jeroen Bollen jbin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 at 09:03 Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 at 09:03 Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com 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
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,
Jeroen Bollen
