On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Carsten Haitzler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo api as eo_ >> ? >> why not just move it into efl_ space :) i see no reason to keep it separate. >> it's just confusing. is what iw ant in eo_ or in efl_ ? >> >> either that or we move all efl_* space to eo_* - either way .. why keep both? >> why make people have to figure out where something comes from before they can >> use it?
You have my support for this. Nobody reacted possitively when I proposed that, but I don't see the point of the eo namespace in efl interface. >> now that comes to eina. we can't sensibly do eina_* to efl_* i think without >> having major issues. but what do people think? maybe it should be less >> mysteriously named like eina_and instead be et_ or edt_ (efl types, efl data >> types)... unless we can sensibly actually make it efl_... >> >> i am not talking about what .so is belongs in - just the api namespacing. >> >> comments? > > For Eina, wouldn't that mean double the symbols for legacy? Also this is going to be a tremendous change with no clear benefit as it only affect our C user. It is going to create a massive confusion as there will be even less code showing it. Also I believe that by now our C developers base is used to it and will have some pain to do that change risking to loose developers for no reason. -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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=278785231&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
