On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 07:13, Nathan Ingersoll wrote: > 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. :-) >
I second that :) Espen Nilsen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
