On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:23:28 +0100 Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> said:
> On 28/03/16 08:07, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:07:03 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) > > <[email protected]> said: > > > >> 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? > > > > so it looks like zero people against this... should we do this now - like > > soon/early? > > > > I've been deferring my reply because I don't really know where I stand > on this. My gut says no, but it is an inconsistency. So no strong > objection from me so far. I'll try to come up with good reasons against > it tonight. or don't... and just go with the flow... :) -- ------------- 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=278785471&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
