On 09/05/15 12:04, Davide Andreoli wrote: > 2015-05-08 10:00 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen <[email protected]>: > >> On 07/05/15 19:35, Davide Andreoli wrote: >>> 2015-05-07 10:19 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On 06/05/15 20:25, Davide Andreoli wrote: >>>>> 2015-05-06 19:04 GMT+02:00 Tom Hacohen <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> tasn pushed a commit to branch master. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=6cb22bae35a8e621e0857fc2738657ff068478f8 >>>>>> >>>>>> commit 6cb22bae35a8e621e0857fc2738657ff068478f8 >>>>>> Author: Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> >>>>>> Date: Fri Apr 17 14:31:19 2015 +0100 >>>>>> >>>>>> Eo: Add eo_do_part. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a convenience macro to be used by the common pattern of >>>> getting >>>>>> a part and then immediately calling functions on it. For >> example, >>>>>> without this macro, you'd have to write code like: >>>>>> >>>>>> Eo *part; >>>>>> eo_do(obj, part = efl_part_name_get("partname")); >>>>>> eo_do(part, a_set(7)); >>>>>> >>>>>> while using the helper function trims it to: >>>>>> >>>>>> eo_do_part(obj, efl_part_name_get("partname"), a_set(7)); >>>>>> >>>>>> @feature >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a reason why efl_part_name_get() is named like this? >>>>> It seems to me the name for the function is wrong, or confusing at >>>>> least... >>>>> *_name_get means: get the name of the part, >>>>> while the function actually does the contrary. No? >>>>> >>>>> And why not just make the macro call the part_get function internally? >>>>> So that it can be used like: >>>>> eo_do_part(obj, "partname", a_set(7)); >>>>> This seems much more natural to me >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> efl_part_name_get() is not named like anything. It doesn't exist. This >>>> part_get feature is an experiment I'd like to see if it picks up. >>>> However, nothing is using it at the moment. >>>> >>>> The problem with eo_do_part() the way you've suggested it, is that it >>>> limits us to a specific function and a specific number of arguments. I >>>> see it as something that will be used like: >>>> eo_do_part(obj, efl_list_first_get(), a_set(7)); >>>> too and many other variations on that. >>>> >>> >>> Ok, now I understand your intention, I was thinking only at edje parts, >>> as edje is the only place where we use the "part" word. >>> Maybe then the macro should be called: eo_item_do? >>> >> >> Fair suggestion. I honestly don't know. When I hit the reply button, I >> was in a "hell yeah, thanks, you are right" mood. Now I'm not sure. >> >> Item is very generic while part means you'll be calling this on part of >> the object. I think part is a stronger word that means what we mean >> exactly. I'd however love to be convinced otherwise. >> > > ok, go on in this useless discussion :) > > I'm also not really sure about the "correct" word, both 'part' and 'item' > are > confusing because we use them for specific tasks. We should find > a word that do not clash with other usage, here some synonyms: > - component > - element > - piece > - bit > - chunk > > None really seems perfect, but the one I prefer is "element"... > eo_element_do ?? >
I still think that part is good. Component is also good, but it's too long. I think part is better. > Instead I'm quite sure that the "do" must be at the end, > ex: eo_part_do, and not eo_do_part I dunno tbh. It depends on how you look at it. If you consider the do as the verb, yeah, it should be at the end. But I don't I consider it as the namespace, so for example, we have eo_do and eo_do_super. A complement to those would thus be eo_do_part. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
