Just an addendum, On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Felipe Magno de Almeida < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Carsten Haitzler > <[email protected]>wrote:> > so ultimately i expect to have this: > > > > > > eo_do(obj, > > > efl_color_set(255, 128, 0, 255), > > > efl_font_set("Sans", 16), > > > efl_text_set("This is some text"), > > > efl_geom_pos_set(20, 30), > > > efl_visible_set(1)); > > > > > > > Eo as is being used, seems to heavily promote lower case macros. I find > > this to > > be very disturbing. I don't know how this could be workedaround, but > > creating > > lower-case macros for every function is bound to create difficults with > > interoperability of third-party code. > > i think you are taking the macros too literally - they are lowercase >> because >> they actually represent functions (methods). they won't conflict because >> they >> are namespaced anyway... as much a conflict as a function call of the >> same name >> would be. >> > > With macros I can't define local variables or structs, and with C++ I'm > also restricted > to member-functions, classes, free-functions, basically identifiers in any > context which would > clash with efl_color_set, efl_font_set, efl_text_set, etc. And, also all > other > function names used in eo but for classes defined by third-party code to > which I may > want to interoperate now or in the future. > This approach is basically creating keywords. Lots of them, for each and new class. You can't even have the same function name in disparate class hiearchies in the same translation unit. Regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
