On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:05:38 +0900 Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui > <daniel.za...@samsung.com> said: > > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +0000 > > Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > > On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > >> Hey, > > > >> > > > >> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this > > > >> time, I really think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on > > > >> stabilizing Eo and all of the functions on top of it in the > > > >> next few months, so that doesn't leave us much more time to > > > >> change it again. :) > > > >> > > > >> These changes will remove the need for the eo_do family of > > > >> functions. Functions will now look like normal C functions > > > >> (which they are). There are many benefits to that, and we have > > > >> many cool new ideas. > > > >> > > > >> For more info: https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eo/ > > > >> > > > >> I'm sending this email as an head's up, as I'll be starting to > > > >> work on migrating to the new Eo syntax (and implementing it) > > > >> today. Felipe and I have actually already started (needed to > > > >> for the PoC), but I plan on pushing my changes to master soon. > > > >> > > > >> If you have any issues/suggestions/comments with the proposal, > > > >> please let me know, either in pm, irc or just here. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Changes are in! I still haven't migrated eo_add to the new > > > > syntax (it uses a non portable gcc extension in the meanwhile), > > > > but otherwise everything is in. Took me *much* less time than I > > > > thought it would, so yay. :P > > > > > > > > I decided to push it now instead of letting it rest in my branch > > > > for a while because literally every hour that passed introduced > > > > more merge conflicts for me, so the benefits from stabilising it > > > > more in my branch were diminished by the new conflicts and > > > > issues that could arise. > > > > > > > > If you have an application that uses the Eo api, you can use my > > > > script https://devs.enlightenment.org/~tasn/migrate_eo.py to > > > > migrate your code. When using the script you should keep two > > > > things in mind: 1. You are only allowed to run it *once* per > > > > source code, because the changes to eo_add() would otherwise > > > > accumulate and your code will be wrong. If you need to correct > > > > something you've done wrong, reset the code to the previous > > > > state and run the script again on the original code. 2. The > > > > migration script is not perfect. In particular it can't deal > > > > with some corner cases like: eo_do(obj, a_set(1), > > > > /* b_set(2), > > > > g_set(4), */ > > > > c_set(2)); > > > > Or abominations like: > > > > eo_do(obj, if (a_get()) > > > > do_something()); > > > > > > > > So please be aware of that and *manually* review your changes > > > > after the script has run. > > > > > > > > If your code does have these cases, I recommend you either get > > > > rid of them, or manually migrate that code before running the > > > > script (remove the relevant eo_do). > > > > > > > > Follow the wiki page mentioned in the previous email for more > > > > information about Eo and what else needs changing. > > > > > > > > Please let me know about any regressions (there shouldn't be > > > > any) or any issues you may face. > > > > > > I'm now pushing my changes to eo_add. I'm pushing it now for the > > > same reason I pushed the previous changes in. > > > > > > I created a new script that assumes the code has already been > > > migrated with the previous (migrate_eo.py) script. This script is > > > called migrate_eo_add.py and can be found at: > > > https://devs.enlightenment.org/~tasn/migrate_eo_add.py > > > > > > When using the script you should keep two things in mind: > > > 1. You are only allowed to run it *once* per source code, because > > > the changes to eo_add() would otherwise accumulate and your code > > > will be wrong. If you need to correct something you've done > > > wrong, reset the code to the previous state and run the script > > > again on the original code. 2. The migration script is not > > > perfect. In particular it can't deal with cases like missing {} > > > for if/for/while content so for example, > > > > > > if () > > > return eo_add(...) > > > > > > would break. > > > 3. If you are fancy and use the same variable inside eo_add and > > > outside, for example like: > > > parent = eo_add(CLASS, parent); > > > > > > your code will break. I suggest you use a temporary variable. > > > > > > So please be aware of that and *manually* review your changes > > > after the script has run. > > > > > > If your code does have these cases, I recommend you either get > > > rid of them, or manually migrate that code before running the > > > script (remove the relevant eo_do). > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but C++ will break until the C++ guys fix it. I'm now in > > > the process of migrating the rest of our applications. Hopefully > > > this will be the last disruption of this sort. > > > > > > > Sorry man but the new syntax is ugly. I still don't see why this > > change was needed. Please enlighten me. It reminds me the wonderful > > eo_do_ret syntax :-) > > > > So yes Tom I vomit on your eo_add > > > > > > BBEEEUUUUUUAAAAAHHHHH... > > > > %%%%%% > > %%%% = = > > %%C > > > _)' _( .' , > > __/ |_/\ " *. o > > /` \_\ \/ %`= '_ . > > / ) \/| .^',*. , > > /' /- o/ - " % '_ > > /\_/ < = , ^ ~ . > > )_o|----'| .` ' > > ___// (_ - (\ eo_add(&obj... > > ///-( \' \\ > > bwhahahahahha. > > the reason was eo add methods. > > obj = eo_add(..., text_set(obj, "x"), color_set(obj, 1, 2, 3, 4)); > > because eo4 changes to pass obj into every method - that means obj > has to be filled and defined with the RIGHT eo id before the extra > text_set() is called because it passes it in, thus you have to pass a > ptr to the eiod so it can be filled in first so it is correct for the > following calls within the eo_add. Why not just use some keyword for the object e.g THIS/EO_ME/whatever that would be replaced during preprocessing with eoid (that was defined in _eo_add_common)? > > > > -- > > > Tom. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Transform Data into Opportunity. > > > Accelerate data analysis in your applications with > > > Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. > > > Click to learn more. > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Transform Data into Opportunity. > > Accelerate data analysis in your applications with > > Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. > > Click to learn more. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140 > > _______________________________________________ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
