Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols] presentation-time: add missing bitfield marker

onale - this will only hurt people generating rich > bindings, who are the exact people who want it - this is: > Acked-by: Daniel Stone Wayland-rs will always welcome such corrections of the the protocol files. Acked-by: Victor Berger Best, Victor Berger. ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols] presentation-time: add missing bitfield marker

gt; For instance, wayland-rs seems to be generating different code: > https://github.com/Smithay/wayland-rs/blob/master/wayland-scanner/src/common_gen.rs#L33 > > Adding Victor Berger to the discussion. I can't talk for other projects, but in the case of wayland-rs this kind of correctio

Re: API feedback for an alternate libwayland implementation tailored for ffi bindings

Hi Drew, 1 juillet 2019 21:08 "Drew DeVault" a écrit: > Hey Victor! I want to quickly thank you for all of your hard work > allowing Wayland to flourish in the Rust ecosystem, along with the rest > of the community that supports you. Thanks! > Big +1 to more implementations of the Wayland

API feedback for an alternate libwayland implementation tailored for ffi bindings

Hi everyone, A few weeks ago was discussed on IRC the idea or re-using my Rust implementation of the Wayland protocol [1] to build an alternate implementation of the libwayland C API. This is an idea I'm interested in, and apparently at least a few other persons are interested as well.

Re: Sharing a single wl_display (client) by multiple toolkits

Hi, I just want to provide some perspective on this issue, which has arisen quite early I started the Rust bindings. 25 mars 2019 10:20 "Pekka Paalanen" a écrit: > One idea is arguably a hack: the first word pointed to by a wl_proxy > userdata could be a magic value, that allows the toolkit

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi Pekka, On 3/12/19 10:55 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > now that we have turned merge requests on for libwayland, I think we > have pretty much reached the state you wish for. > > When wayland-protocols gets its gitlab.fd.o repository, I expect most > of protocol development to happen there,

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, As the maintainer of wayland-rs, Smithay's Client Toolkit and of the part of Smithay that deal with the Wayland protocol (all three projects can be found on the the Github Smithay org: https://github.com/Smithay ), I feel especially concerned by this question: On 2/21/19 6:11 PM, Jonas Ådahl

[PATCH wayland] client: Add missing arg in a wl_log invocation

Without this 'proxy' argument, the '%p' formatter prints a constant garbage value. Signed-off-by: Victor Berger <victor.ber...@m4x.org> --- src/wayland-client.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/wayland-client.c b/src/wayland-client.c index 509be08..4

Re: [PATCH wayland v3 2/4] protocol: specify enum and bitfield attributes

msung.com> Acked-by: Victor Berger <victor.ber...@m4x.org> --- protocol/wayland.xml | 36 ++-- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/protocol/wayland.xml b/protocol/wayland.xml index 59819e9..9c22d45 100644 --- a/protocol/wayland.

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

Le 2015-10-05 21:53, Nils Chr. Brause a écrit : Bill Spitzak wrote: Similarly it seems like an "open" indicator that can be added to enums (including bitfields) would help, as it sounds like some languages make it difficult or cryptic to allow casting of arbitrary numbers to the enum value.

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

Le 2015-10-02 15:16, Pekka Paalanen a écrit : On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:50:42 +0100 Auke Booij wrote: [start] The enum and bitfield attributes are in principle for documentation purposes only. The enum and bitfield attributes may also be used by bindings, but only in such a way

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

Le 2015-10-02 14:12, Auke Booij a écrit : However, I'm not sure who you are trying to protect here. Everyone agrees that the new attributes should not change anything for C/C++, and in the current patches, they don't. And the other bindings writers understand the compatibility issues regarding

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays in the .xml file

Hi, First of all, thanks for your replies. On 2015-09-24 20:35, Bill Spitzak wrote : Um, that is entirely the point of this change! The current xml does not provide enough information so that a language binding can know that some arrangements are illegal. Therefore current language bindings

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays in the .xml file

On 2015-09-25 12:25, Nils Chr. Brause wrote : Hi, On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Victor Berger <victor.ber...@polytechnique.org> wrote: What I meant here is that the format and contents of the XML files is currently defined by the implementation of the C scanner, which is a less

Re: Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays in the .xml file

Hi, After some discussions on IRC, it appears this raises several concerns about back-compatibility. The main points being: - if a protocol file previously did not use these extra attributes, and choses to add them, depending on the language using them it can be a breaking change (as it

Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays in the .xml file

e about enums and bitfields. Thanks, Victor Berger ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel