On 2 October 2015 at 14:49, Victor Berger <victor.ber...@m4x.org> wrote: > Le 2015-10-02 15:16, Pekka Paalanen a écrit : >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:50:42 +0100 >> Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> 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 that code written prior to the >>> specification of these attributes still works after their >>> specification. In other words, specifying an attribute for an >>> argument, that previously did not have it, should not break API. >>> [end] >> >> >> I like this very much. Let's see if anyone disagrees. >> >> Do you intend to allow also changing rather than only adding these new >> attributes in the wording above? > > > While I don't disagree, I have a small concern: > > Do we agree that this involves at some point writing a specification of the > format of the XML files? > > Because otherwise, if the XML format remains defined by the implementation > of the C scanner, and that these attributes are explicitly defined as for > documentation only and ignored by the C scanner, this means the XML writers > would be allowed to write any garbage they want as a value for these fields. > > As a consequence, bindings writers cannot give any value to these fields, > and they become basically useless. I mean, it seems logical that the value > of the "enum" field should be something like "enum_name" or > "interface_name.enum_name", or whatever format will be chosen. But these > fields have practically no value if we cannot expect this format to be > respected (documentation-only fields can also simply be written in the > "description" field, if they are not used anywhere). > > -- > Victor >
I agree with your concern. However, note that "for documentation purposes" does not mean that it is just a documentation string: we document a very clear and precise fact, for the purpose of understanding the API (ie documentation). My previous patches indeed do some checking wrt enum name cross-matching. This would have to be extended for enum names that refer to a different interface. Pekka's proposal to include a "strict" mode will help here, for cross-XML-interface-checking. Even though this would be optional, it means we'll have to let go of the idea that protocol files are mostly independent (if there ever was any such belief). _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
