I see. In that case, I'll have to maintain my own xml file for my C++ bindings.
Thanks, Nils On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:28:30 +0300 > Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2014-09-03 10:15 GMT+03:00 Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com>: > > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:07:44 +0200 > > > "Nils Chr. Brause" <nilschrbra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> > Another problem with this patch is that while it adds new syntax to > the > > >> > protocol XML, it does not add anything that would either explain nor > > >> > validate/enforce it. (We do not actually use the DTD for anything > > >> > anymore.) > > >> > > > >> > Yes, we do not have a document describing the XML format, and that > is a > > >> > problem. Would be nice to start one, if anyone can work with > Publican. > > >> > > > >> > The very least, wayland-scanner should be reading the enum attribute > > >> > and check that the referenced enum exists. I'm not sure if it can > > >> > generate a nice doc snippet into the generated code, but if there > is a > > >> > way to include that, it would be useful. We need *something* in the > > >> > Wayland repository actually using these new attributes, so that > they do > > >> > not bit-rot immediately. > > >> > > >> I will look into the scanner code then. That is probably the easiest > > >> possibility > > >> to prevent bit-rot, since I never did anything with Publican. > > >> > > >> While I'm at that, I would also like to make use of the enum names in > the > > >> generated C code. As far as I can see, this would not break any > existing > > >> code, would it? Also, that would require the enum definitions to be > at the > > >> top > > >> of the header files (just below the struct forward declarations), > because > > >> enums cannot be forward declared. Would that be acceptable? > > > > > > Perhaps, if it does not cause problems on C++. I'm not sure, but I > > > recall C++ being more strict than C wrt. enums. > > > > It is, in the sense that it doesn't automatically cast int to enums, > > so that could break the API. Also, wouldn't it possibily be an ABI > > break? Afaik enums don't have a very defined size, so what is now a > > int32 could become e.g. a 16 bits enum field. > > Yeah, I think that is another valid concern. > > > Thanks, > pq >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel