2016-09-24 2:24 GMT+02:00 Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr>: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Davide Andreoli > <d...@gurumeditation.it> wrote: > > 2016-09-21 4:35 GMT+02:00 Felipe Magno de Almeida < > > felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com>: > >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Davide Andreoli < > d...@gurumeditation.it> > >> wrote: > >> > 2016-09-18 4:30 GMT+02:00 Felipe Magno de Almeida < > >> > felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com>: > >> >> On Sep 17, 2016 3:53 AM, "Davide Andreoli" <d...@gurumeditation.it> > >> wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> >> The problem with callbacks is not difficult to implement, but > difficult > >> to > >> >> free the void* data. It needs two function pointers and the void* > data > >> to > >> >> implement correctly and generally. Not that I'm against per se, but > >> >> lifetime is the real problem. > >> > > >> > Indeed the lifetime of the *void data is the trickiest part, a > >> free_data_cb > >> > seems to me the most "correct" way to handle this, not only for > bindings > >> > but also for C code. > >> > > >> > Can you explain me how promises solve this problem? where the user is > >> > expected to free the *data in C? in both the success/failure > callbacks? > >> > >> Promises are not generic, so their lifetime is known. The user frees it > in > >> success/failure callback, yes. > >> > > > > ok, thanks for the explanation. So the user have to free the *data in > both > > success and failure callbacks... this is error prone and repetitive for > the > > user, > > I suggest instead to add a free_data cb, in this way the usage is simpler > > and > > it also correspond better with the promise_value_set that already have > the > > free callback. > > Hum, we are talking about the data pointer given when registering the > callback right ? I guess it would make sense and simplify a lot of > code.
yes, something like: efl_future_then(f, _done_cb, _error_cb, _progress_cb, data, _free_data_cb); Should we also apply that on efl.object events too ? > not really sure about this. But, as raster said, for api symmetry it should be done also on normal events... It will also simplify the bindings generation. > In that case, if NULL is given, nothing will be done on the pointer. > Are we ok with this ? > -- > Cedric BAIL > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
