> this is meant to be a small sandbox to play in. generic bindings are intended
> to
> be powerful and generically useful- different use cases. check how bindings
> are
> actually done first - you have to provide all the c functions to point to (and
> these in turn wrap up the actual evas/whatever calls). these would be
> different
> for edje as opposed to generic bindings and so there is no point worrying
> about
> the non-edje case as it is currently not useful.
>
I'd also say here that such a 'limited&secure' set of bindings
would likely be useful to anyone wanting to do such 'secure' scripting
with evas.. and to state that "there is no point worrying about the
non-edje case as it is currently not useful" as a reason why such
limited bindings should be *only* made within edje seems to me like
not only a self-fulfilling prophecy but also rather short-sighted.
____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online degrees and make up to $150K/ year.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNfaBHYr3KUsj4A5LrL4QZObvEXUvzSGZ759eDgCcI1yZx6/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
