On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:48:33PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:53:13 +0100 > Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote: > > > On 1 October 2015 at 20:00, Nils Chr. Brause <nilschrbra...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I would prefer, if the enum attributes would also name the interface, > > > where the enum can be found, e.g.: > > > <arg name="format" type="uint" enum="wl_shm.format"/> > > > If two enums in different interfaces happen to have the same name (if > > > that's possible?), this would lead to ambiguities otherwise. Also a > > > scanner wouldn't have to look up the interface name that way. > > > > While in principle I think this is a great idea, this will need a few > > specifications, which is why I decided not to add those in just yet. > > Are cross-XML references allowed in this sense? In that case, the > > scanner cannot verify their correctness, since only the current XML > > file is available to it. Additionally, moving a certain interface from > > xdg_shell to the core wayland protocol would now mean potentially > > having to weaken the type safety of an interface, or having to copy > > the enum over. > > Hi, > > yeah, adding the interface name makes perfect sense. It could be > optional if wanted. No dot would mean the enum is in the same > interface, a dot would signify a specific interface. I don't think > there is any use for an anonymous global namespace like Bill mentioned. > > As for link validity check, I could live with checking it only if the > mentioned or implied interface is defined in the same XML file. This > should cover most cases, and the rest would manifest as compile errors > on non-C language bindings. > > It's really all we can do anyway. XML files are perfectly allowed to > reference interfaces defined elsewhere, even in XML files not available > at the time. > > A generator could have an extended check mode, where you can feed it a > bunch of XML files for reference, while generating the code just for > one, but I don't think it would be a good idea to absolutely require > that on the XML language spec level, because it would again break old > build systems.
Sounds like might be something worth adding to distcheck. > Btw. when xdg-shell or any other new extension gets promoted to Wayland > as stable, it will not be appended into wayland.xml. It will simply be > yet another XML file to be installed by libwayland. Furthermore, > libwayland will not install pre-generated C-bindings for it. All > projects using the extension need to run wayland-scanner or any other > generator during their build. Do you expect that might pose problems for anyone? Bryce _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel