On 12/07/13 07:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:00:15 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> said: > > ok. looked at eo2test.c > > eo2_do(obj, > a = inst_func(eo_o, 32); > inst_func(eo_o, 10); > b = inst_func(eo_o, 50); > ); > > first... passing in eo_o... should probably go away. ie >
Gustavo suggested (but he's too lazy to write an email about it and I need reminders so I'm sending it) that we use a stack to keep the eo pointer. This means we won't expose the eo pointer anymore (which doesn't matter, but whatever), we will be able to have function signatures the way we want them, e.g: evas_object_move(x, y), instead of passing anything and it should be cool in general. I'm happy, and will incorporate that unless objected. As long as we pre-allocate the stack it shouldn't come at a big cost. What do you guys think? -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
