On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:52:22PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote: > On 19 April 2015 at 14:51, Jeroen Bollen <jbin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > It seems like this discussion died off. Currently there is no way to tell, > > from the Wayland XML specification whether an argument is a bitfield, or > > whether the argument takes an enum and what enum this is. > > > > I am currently in the progress of writing a Wayland binding generator for > > the Rust language. This language, like many others is strongly typed. To > > make full usage of this type system, it would be beneficial to know from the > > specification whether an argument is a bitfield, and what enum type it > > takes. > > > > Surely there are more people who generate bindings to these strongly typed > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wayland-devel mailing list > > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > > > > Based on the discussion I wrote two patches: one for the wayland.xml > (and wayland.dtd since the fact of the matter is that that file is > still there), and one for scanner.c > > See 5dc0112f734d23d65a2bf9a78f11463d0294b6c7 and > b6d5659c650056f66267f3f20fdbaf724138a61b in [0]. > > Is this a good format for sending patches? Or are actual patch emails > preferred?
Actual patch emails are preferred, since our tooling (patchwork and phabricator) only know to identify patches here on the list. > The scanner.c code checks that the enum attribute of an <arg> is the > name of an <enum> in the same <interface>. In that case, it checks > that the type of the <arg> is an int or a uint, and if the <enum> had > bitfield set to "true", that the type was indeed uint. > > If these properties are not satisfied, the scanner dies. Is that what > was expected? Thanks for following up. I went through the earlier discussion, and my take is that there were some strong opinions but it sounds like it resulted in a consensus. It looks to me like your patch implements this consensus, but to be 100% certain it would be good to see thumbs-up by pekka, jeroen, and others that participated in that thread. It also needs to be documented, at least in wayland/doc/publican/sources/Protocol.xml, and possibly other places where types are discussed. Since we're only a couple weeks out from a release, and since this obviously is a non-trivial change to the API, I'd be most comfortable if we held this until 1.9 opens, and land it then; that would give us maximum time to test this. (Speaking of testing, it would be Really Nice to have a test for the scanner.) Bryce _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
