IMHO, if it allows the editing then no need 'const' anymore.
Even I don't know about entry much better than u,
Still I'm wondering the return of the textblok is reasonable...
------------------------------------
-Regards, Hermet-
-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Hacohen"<tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com>
To: "enlightenment-devel"<enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Sent: 11-11-14(월) 23:00:28
Subject: [E-devel] RFC - New elm_entry function (rev: 65169)
Hey all,
I added elm_entry_textblock_get so people will be able to do more
low-level manipulations on the textblock object of the entry.
I explained the implications in the doc and also explained there that it
should be use mostly for querying, but editing is also allowed as long
as a couple of precautions are taken, and all the changes are followed
by a call to elm_entry_calc_force.
As an additional warning to the nature of this function, I made it
return a const textblock object (although, as I said editing is allowed).
What do you think? Should I keep the const? Remove it? Do anything else
to make sure users of the API understand how it should be used?
Thanks,
Tom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
