On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:19:55PM +1100, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > yes.. if renaming is to happen.. NOW is the time. i don't want duplicate fn > calls for "compatability" i'd like to keep it simple. i'd prefer to make people > have to change their code than add #defines or compat symbols (at this stage) > > but is this warranting a change? that is the question... i'll be happy with a > vote of some sort. i'm of 2 minds so i the event on indecision i'll do nothing. > if enough peolpe think its worth a change.. change it shall. >
I'm in favor of the rename. IMHO, evas_object_* should all have an object parameter or return an object, whereas anything that globally effects an evas or all evas' should be evas_*. My two cents. :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Nathan Ingersoll \\ Computer Systems & Network Coordinator | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ http://www.ruralcenter.org | | http://ningerso.atmos.org/ \\ Minnesota Center for Rural Health | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
msg00197/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
