HI, On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:39:47 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:24:19AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:16:31 -0500 >> > Yong Bakos <j...@humanoriented.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On May 30, 2016, at 3:54 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, 28 May 2016 08:39:59 -0500 >> > > > Yong Bakos <j...@humanoriented.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Hi Mike, >> > > >> Regarding the combination of type="array" enum="foo"... >> > > >> >> > > >>> On May 27, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz >> > > >>> <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I've inlined some replies below. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:13 PM Yong Bakos <j...@humanoriented.com >> > > >>> <mailto:j...@humanoriented.com>> wrote: >> > > >>> On May 27, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Mike Blumenkrantz >> > > >>> <zm...@osg.samsung.com <mailto:zm...@osg.samsung.com>> wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> this adds a method for compositors to change various draw attributes >> > > >>>> for a surface >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <zm...@osg.samsung.com >> > > >>>> <mailto:zm...@osg.samsung.com>> >> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com >> > > >>>> <mailto:jad...@gmail.com>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Hi Mike & Jonas, >> > > >>> A question about communicating default state, and some >> > > >>> minor nits you can certainly ignore, inline below. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> --- >> > > >>>> unstable/xdg-shell/xdg-shell-unstable-v6.xml | 69 >> > > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > >>>> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+) >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> diff --git a/unstable/xdg-shell/xdg-shell-unstable-v6.xml >> > > >>>> b/unstable/xdg-shell/xdg-shell-unstable-v6.xml >> > > >>>> index dfd7e84..0fa76d4 100644 >> > > >>>> --- a/unstable/xdg-shell/xdg-shell-unstable-v6.xml >> > > >>>> +++ b/unstable/xdg-shell/xdg-shell-unstable-v6.xml >> > > > >> > > >>>> + >> > > >>>> + Calling this after an xdg_toplevel's first commit will >> > > >>>> raise a client error. >> > > >>>> + </description> >> > > >>>> + <arg name="states" type="array" enum="draw_state"/> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Just a sanity check, since I haven't seen it in a protocol spec yet. >> > > >>> Does scanner handle >> > > >>> this combination of array and enum correctly? >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Good catch. This also affects the event above it. >> > > >> >> > > >> As we discussed via IRC (27 May), the scanner will choke on this. >> > > >> While we talked about >> > > >> making a change to the scanner to allow this, perhaps such a change >> > > >> doesn't make sense. >> > > >> >> > > >> Given a type="array", scanner will generate a parameter of type >> > > >> wl_array. >> > > >> >> > > >> Perhaps the short story here is to just remove the enum from this >> > > >> arg, and the similar >> > > >> arg in the configure_draw_states event above. What do you think? >> > > >> >> > > >> (I wonder if it's the DTD that can change, so the scanner's >> > > >> validation step >> > > >> will catch the unsupported combination of type="array" enum="foo". My >> > > >> gut tells me that >> > > >> DTDs don't support this logic, but I'll dig into this.) >> > > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > here is some background. >> > > > >> > > > A type="array" argument is really just a binary blob of data. The XML >> > > > description, human documentation aside, does not specify anything about >> > > > the blob contents. Therefore adding an XML attribute pointing to an >> > > > enum definition is half-useless. Generators could use it for creating >> > > > automatic links in documentation, but it cannot be used for code >> > > > generation, because you don't know the types contained in the blob. >> > > > >> > > > We also do not want to add blob content type definitions to the XML >> > > > language, because you might want to have everything C is able to >> > > > express, including nested structs. There is also no requirement that >> > > > the "array" is really an array - every "element" could be a different >> > > > thing. It could be bitstream and whatnot. Only the use of >> > > > wl_array_for_each() implies it is an array of similar elements, >> > > > wl_array_add() does not.
Then that's not an 'array' than but more like a struct. Therefore the structure definition should be in the XML. Leaving it undocumented is a terrible option. >> > > > The big point in adding enum annotations was that language bindings >> > > > generators (other than wayland-scanner) could use the annotation for >> > > > code generation. I don't think it is possible with the array type. Of course it is. If we properly define its contents, language bindings could put the proper structure into the argument list of the particular requests/events. >> > > > >> > > > If we allow enum annotation with the array type, it will only be usable >> > > > for doc links, unlike the other enum annotations. >> > > > >> > > > OTOH, we have lots and lots of places in the documentation texts that >> > > > refer to some request, event, interface, etc. that would be useful as a >> > > > hyperlink in the generated docs. Enums could fall into that as well, so >> > > > we would not need the attribute for only documentation. >> > > > >> > > > Auke, Nils, what's your take on this matter? Sorry for my late answer. I'm am currently very busy with my PhD thesis. >> > > > >> > > > We do have some documentation about enums in >> > > > https://wayland.freedesktop.org/docs/html/ch04.html#sect-Protocol-Basic-Principles >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > pq >> > > >> > > Pekka, >> > > Thank you for the info. Just so I understand your points correctly, let >> > > me assert that /just/ making a minor change to scanner to not error on >> > > the presence of both array and enum together does not have any major >> > > drawbacks. >> > >> > None other than it does not make sense now and I cannot see how it >> > could make sense in the future. I see it similar to allowing >> > "interface" attribute on <arg> tags whose type is not "object" or >> > "new_id". >> > >> > Therefore I am against the idea unless you can point out something I >> > didn't already take into account. >> >> Is this that much different from adding a enum attribute to a uint or >> int entry? It adds additional assumptions about the content of the low >> level data type. An "array" is implemented as a series of bytes, but it >> could be interpreted as a series of enum values as well. A language >> binding could use this information in a similar way as to how it would >> interpret enum on an int in that it can expose the low level array as >> for example a list of enum values. > > Hi, > > how can you turn a wl_array into a list of enums, when you do not know > the element size in the wl_array? That's my major objection. > > Nothing says it's 32-bit in the XML, we don't have the language for > that. Should we then add a new attribute "element_size" applicable only > to <arg>s with type="array", giving the element size in bytes? > > If the attribute is not given, then the array is a single blob as > before. > > Then the remaining ambiguity would be signed vs. unsigned. Reading that, I get the impression that arrays are completely unusable right now. How is a programmer supposed to know how to use an array, if there is no documentation about its contents, whatsoever? > >> That is my take on it anyhow; I'm not a language binding author so take >> it with a grain of salt. > > Me neither, so I would not go adding these features unless someone > tells us they would really be useful for language bindings. Then we get > to figure out what the ABI stability rules are for adding or changing > these. I am a language binding developer. In my C++ bindings [1] the developer currently has to know what the contents of a particular array are and do a manual cast (See the bottom of my README.md). This is sub-optimal. I'd rather have a std::vector<> (or whatever) with the correct type already in the argument list, otherwise the user could cast the array to the wrong thing accidentally. > And yes, we have probably neglected to explicitly document the array > element type in all interfaces so far. That's a doc bug. Are there any plans to fix that? Once the contents of arrays are _properly_ documented (complete type), language bindings could finally produce arrays with the correct content instead of having the user to manually cast them (possibly wrongly). > > I still do not think we should preclude anyone from storing a list of > enums in an array of e.g. uint8_t. Maybe xdg-shell could use arrays of > uint16_t for the state enums? Everywhere else, enums are 32 bits ('int, 'uint'). Why should that be different in arrays? That doesn't make any sense and will confuse people unnecessarily. > > > Thanks, > pq > >> > >> > If it is only about doc links, I'd really prefer to improve the doc >> > generation to be able to produce links from text properly if it doesn't >> > work already. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > pq >> >> > [1] https://github.com/NilsBrause/waylandpp. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
