On 22/09/16 07:55, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 15:34, Davide Andreoli <d...@gurumeditation.it>
> wrote:
>
>> 2016-09-22 0:45 GMT+02:00 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 21/09/16 15:10, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> promise/future should be first-class citizen... as well as iterator
>>>>>>> and the likes. There is a start already, but refinement is really
>>>>>>> needed, like returning an iterator<x> should handle warn_unused,
>> free,
>>>>>>> own... Promise should have its own callback signature, simplified
>> for
>>>>>>> the user.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can, be, but they will just be provided by Eo. There's no need
>> for
>>>>>> any special treatment in Eo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Promise signature: you don't need to do it in Eo. I mean, you can
>> add a
>>>>>> special type in Eolian, but Eo itself need not be aware. Also, I
>>> disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean still use Eo's events to dispatch promises?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily, just use the same signature because it's a good one,
>>>> it's extendable, it applies here too, and it's easier for bindings this
>>> way.
>>>
>>> It's a good one to who? It's a generic one, for sure, but that doesn't
>>> make it a good one. Promises, for instance, will carry a value, but
>>> it's not immediately available. Even for regular events I don't get
>>> why the object must be fetched from the efl_event...
>>>
>>
>> I'm with Gustavo here, reusing the same callback signature for event
>> and promises don't seems to be a good idea, it just make the usage more
>> confusing and more error prone. Having 2 different signature will make
>> the separation line between events and promises more clear.
>>
>
> I can hear Cedric screaming in despair on the other side of the planet.
>
> We argued that a single signature was better, as our different callback
> signatures (ecore events, evas events. smart callbacks, ...) were one of
> the pain points of using EFL. Now it's pretty clear some people want to
> reintroduce this with promises vs. events. Gustavo missed these heated
> arguments as he started working back on EFL after those long mail threads.
> Same for why object is in Efl_Event rather than being in the argument list.
>
> To be fair, promises were supposed to carry a single value only, IOW
> Efl_Event.info was supposed to be the value. No double cast. Thinking of
> it, I'm not sure why "next" isn't in fact a property on the promise itself
> (as it's Efl_Event.object), rather than being awkwardly passed in the event
> info -- there may be a good reason. (see also efl_event_callback_stop).
>
> Anyway. I'll wait until I can see *exactly* how async operations (image
> file_set in particular) work with promises. Too much arguing about unclear
> details until that is done.
>

Every word in stone. I'm kind of tired at this point by rearguing 
everything all the time. It has already been discussed to (my) death.

--
Tom.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to