On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:27:15 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida <[email protected]> said:
> 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? > > > > 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? yes it would. that's a downside. but then we have double the funcs for eo api's anyway (kind of). -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
