Dave Mielke, le dim. 09 mai 2021 05:24:11 -0400, a ecrit: > [quoted lines by Samuel Thibault on 2021/05/09 at 11:04 +0200] > > >But for all bindings that will be returned as an array of two elements. > > I don't think that's a good assumption. Why should we impose constraints on > any set of bindings that can offer a better way?
If they wish to do better, ok why not, but by default we'll probably want to have something coherent. > Some bindings might wish to use a list rather than an array. If bindings want to return a list, fine for them, "array" is just a word for the brlapi protocol, it can be expressed whichever way is fine for bindings. I just mean that "array" in brlapi means that the bindings is supposed to expose something that can hold several values, *even if there is only one value to expose*. > They can still ignore isArray and assume an array if count is greater than 1. That's were distorsion starts to begin, I don't think we want this. > >Just like for for BRLAPI_PARAM_COMPUTER_BRAILLE_ROWS_MASK we will return > >an array of 544 elements, and for BRLAPI_PARAM_COMPUTER_BRAILLE_ROW_CELLS > >an array of 256 elements. > > Yes, because those are fixed sizes. Just like the display size if of fixed size. > There are other arrays, however, for which the count is 0 because the > returned size is unknown, i.e. it's variable. And bindings can still return them as arrays. Returning different types for different cases will confuse programmers, I don't think we want that. Samuel _______________________________________________ This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list. To post a message, send an e-mail to: [email protected] For general information, go to: http://brltty.app/mailman/listinfo/brltty
