Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-12 Thread Jean Rene Dawin 
Daniel Kolesa wrote on Thu 11/09/14 12:09:
 2014-09-11 12:00 GMT+01:00 Jean Rene Dawin jda...@math.uni-bielefeld.de:
 
  On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:42:04PM +0300, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
   Hi,
  
   On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.
   
   
  https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
   
Hi,
   
thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result
  of my tst.c
differd a bit, though. I didn't get
   
EOLIAN static void
_tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
{
   eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
}
   
EOLIAN static void
_tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
{
   eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
}
   
but instead
   
EOLIAN static void
_tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
{
}
EOLIAN static void
_tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
{
}
   
Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API
  somewhere?
Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe
  outdated.
Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not
  fixed yet?
   
Thanks for your help,
   
Jean Rene Dawin
   
  
   You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
   for the destructor).
  
   You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
   on the syntax.
  
   One of all the EFL Daniels
 
  Hi,
 
  thanks for the answers. The site you mentioned is indeed very informative
  about eo-file syntax. But what I'm more interested in is the whole
  mechanics of eo_add, eo_do and eo_add_custom and all those functions. For
  example I tried to do this
 
  #define EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT
  #define EFL_EO_API_SUPPORT
  #include Elementary.h
  EAPI_MAIN int
  elm_main(int argc, char **argv){
  eo_init();
  Eo *win = eo_add(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL);
  eo_do(win,
  elm_obj_win_title_set(Nikotinamiddinukleotidphosphat)
  );
  elm_run();
  return 0;
  }
  ELM_MAIN()
 
  and while it compiled fine it threw runtime errors like
 
  ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:1572 eo_error_set_internal() Error with obj
  '0x9500b30' at elm_win.c:3510.
  ERR818:elementary elm_win.c:3511 _elm_win_eo_base_constructor() only
  custom constructor can be used with 'Elm_Win' class
  ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:953 _eo_add_internal_end() Object of class
  'Elm_Win' - Not all of the object constructors have been executed.
 
  as I'm obviously using Eo/Elementary in a wrong manner, but I find it
  quite hard to understand from the source files like Eo.h, how it would be
  done the right way.
  So, I guess I will have to try harder :)
 
 
 You're supposed to use elm_win_add at this point to create the object. The
 base constructor is explicitly overloaded to trigger this error.
 Alternatively, you can use eo_add_custom(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL,
 elm_obj_win_constructor(foo, ELM_WIN_BASIC));. But that's pretty much
 identical to what the elm_win_add function does.

Ah, ok. Does at this point mean at the current state of the Eo implementation 
for
Elementary? Is it planned to replace functions like evas_object_show() with
Eo style functions, or are they planned to coexist?

Thanks for the explanations,

Jean Rene Dawin

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-12 Thread Daniel Kolesa 
2014-09-12 14:11 GMT+01:00 Jean Rene Dawin jda...@math.uni-bielefeld.de:

 Daniel Kolesa wrote on Thu 11/09/14 12:09:
  2014-09-11 12:00 GMT+01:00 Jean Rene Dawin jda...@math.uni-bielefeld.de
 :
 
   On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:42:04PM +0300, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
Hi,
   
On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.


  
 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the
 result
   of my tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
 }

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
 }

 but instead

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }
 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API
   somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or
 maybe
   outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not
   fixed yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin

   
You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor
 (same
for the destructor).
   
You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more
 docs
on the syntax.
   
One of all the EFL Daniels
  
   Hi,
  
   thanks for the answers. The site you mentioned is indeed very
 informative
   about eo-file syntax. But what I'm more interested in is the whole
   mechanics of eo_add, eo_do and eo_add_custom and all those functions.
 For
   example I tried to do this
  
   #define EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT
   #define EFL_EO_API_SUPPORT
   #include Elementary.h
   EAPI_MAIN int
   elm_main(int argc, char **argv){
   eo_init();
   Eo *win = eo_add(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL);
   eo_do(win,
   elm_obj_win_title_set(Nikotinamiddinukleotidphosphat)
   );
   elm_run();
   return 0;
   }
   ELM_MAIN()
  
   and while it compiled fine it threw runtime errors like
  
   ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:1572 eo_error_set_internal() Error with obj
   '0x9500b30' at elm_win.c:3510.
   ERR818:elementary elm_win.c:3511 _elm_win_eo_base_constructor()
 only
   custom constructor can be used with 'Elm_Win' class
   ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:953 _eo_add_internal_end() Object of class
   'Elm_Win' - Not all of the object constructors have been executed.
  
   as I'm obviously using Eo/Elementary in a wrong manner, but I find it
   quite hard to understand from the source files like Eo.h, how it would
 be
   done the right way.
   So, I guess I will have to try harder :)
  
 
  You're supposed to use elm_win_add at this point to create the object.
 The
  base constructor is explicitly overloaded to trigger this error.
  Alternatively, you can use eo_add_custom(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL,
  elm_obj_win_constructor(foo, ELM_WIN_BASIC));. But that's pretty much
  identical to what the elm_win_add function does.

 Ah, ok. Does at this point mean at the current state of the Eo
 implementation for
 Elementary? Is it planned to replace functions like evas_object_show() with
 Eo style functions, or are they planned to coexist?


The idea is to in the end completely redesign the EFL API using Eo (in EFL
2.0). Legacy functions like evas_object_show will stay in form of wrappers
around the new Eo API for compatibility purposes only.



 Thanks for the explanations,

 Jean Rene Dawin


 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.

 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-12 Thread Tom Hacohen 
On 12/09/14 14:11, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 Daniel Kolesa wrote on Thu 11/09/14 12:09:
 2014-09-11 12:00 GMT+01:00 Jean Rene Dawin jda...@math.uni-bielefeld.de:

 On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:42:04PM +0300, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 Hi,

 On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.


 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result
 of my tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
  }

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
  }

 but instead

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API
 somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe
 outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not
 fixed yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin


 You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
 for the destructor).

 You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
 on the syntax.

 One of all the EFL Daniels

 Hi,

 thanks for the answers. The site you mentioned is indeed very informative
 about eo-file syntax. But what I'm more interested in is the whole
 mechanics of eo_add, eo_do and eo_add_custom and all those functions. For
 example I tried to do this

  #define EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT
  #define EFL_EO_API_SUPPORT
  #include Elementary.h
  EAPI_MAIN int
  elm_main(int argc, char **argv){
  eo_init();
  Eo *win = eo_add(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL);
  eo_do(win,
  elm_obj_win_title_set(Nikotinamiddinukleotidphosphat)
  );
  elm_run();
  return 0;
  }
  ELM_MAIN()

 and while it compiled fine it threw runtime errors like

  ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:1572 eo_error_set_internal() Error with obj
 '0x9500b30' at elm_win.c:3510.
  ERR818:elementary elm_win.c:3511 _elm_win_eo_base_constructor() only
 custom constructor can be used with 'Elm_Win' class
  ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:953 _eo_add_internal_end() Object of class
 'Elm_Win' - Not all of the object constructors have been executed.

 as I'm obviously using Eo/Elementary in a wrong manner, but I find it
 quite hard to understand from the source files like Eo.h, how it would be
 done the right way.
 So, I guess I will have to try harder :)


 You're supposed to use elm_win_add at this point to create the object. The
 base constructor is explicitly overloaded to trigger this error.
 Alternatively, you can use eo_add_custom(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL,
 elm_obj_win_constructor(foo, ELM_WIN_BASIC));. But that's pretty much
 identical to what the elm_win_add function does.

 Ah, ok. Does at this point mean at the current state of the Eo 
 implementation for
 Elementary? Is it planned to replace functions like evas_object_show() with
 Eo style functions, or are they planned to coexist?

 Thanks for the explanations,

Very good question. I'd first look at
https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/efl_interfaces/
where I document my efforts.

As for your question, many things will change. The first thing that will 
change is the functions themselves, for example redundant functions 
(part_text_set all over the place) will disappear and become just one 
function overridden for inheriting classes.
Additionally, some functions will just die or completely replaced. We 
are trying to make things more property (set/get clones) oriented to 
more bindable. All of this should be getting there with time.

As for the current EFL API, e.g. evas_object_show, it'll co-exist for a 
while. It'll die once we switch to EFL 2.0.

--
Tom.


--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-11 Thread Jean Rene Dawin 
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:42:04PM +0300, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
  About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.
 
  https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
 
  Hi,
 
  thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result of 
  my tst.c
  differd a bit, though. I didn't get 
 
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
  }
  
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
  }
 
  but instead
 
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }
 
  Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API somewhere?
  Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe 
  outdated.
  Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not fixed 
  yet?
 
  Thanks for your help,
 
  Jean Rene Dawin
 
 
 You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
 for the destructor).
 
 You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
 on the syntax.
 
 One of all the EFL Daniels

Hi,

thanks for the answers. The site you mentioned is indeed very informative about 
eo-file syntax. But what I'm more interested in is the whole mechanics of 
eo_add, eo_do and eo_add_custom and all those functions. For example I tried to 
do this 

#define EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT
#define EFL_EO_API_SUPPORT
#include Elementary.h
EAPI_MAIN int
elm_main(int argc, char **argv){
eo_init();
Eo *win = eo_add(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL);
eo_do(win, 
elm_obj_win_title_set(Nikotinamiddinukleotidphosphat)
);
elm_run();
return 0;
}
ELM_MAIN()

and while it compiled fine it threw runtime errors like 

ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:1572 eo_error_set_internal() Error with obj 
'0x9500b30' at elm_win.c:3510.
ERR818:elementary elm_win.c:3511 _elm_win_eo_base_constructor() only 
custom constructor can be used with 'Elm_Win' class
ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:953 _eo_add_internal_end() Object of class 
'Elm_Win' - Not all of the object constructors have been executed.

as I'm obviously using Eo/Elementary in a wrong manner, but I find it quite 
hard to understand from the source files like Eo.h, how it would be done the 
right way.
So, I guess I will have to try harder :)

Regards,

Jean Rne Dawin


--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-11 Thread Daniel Kolesa 
2014-09-11 12:00 GMT+01:00 Jean Rene Dawin jda...@math.uni-bielefeld.de:

 On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:42:04PM +0300, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
  Hi,
 
  On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
   On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
   About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.
  
  
 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
  
   Hi,
  
   thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result
 of my tst.c
   differd a bit, though. I didn't get
  
   EOLIAN static void
   _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
   {
  eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
   }
  
   EOLIAN static void
   _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
   {
  eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
   }
  
   but instead
  
   EOLIAN static void
   _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
   {
   }
   EOLIAN static void
   _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
   {
   }
  
   Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API
 somewhere?
   Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe
 outdated.
   Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not
 fixed yet?
  
   Thanks for your help,
  
   Jean Rene Dawin
  
 
  You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
  for the destructor).
 
  You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
  on the syntax.
 
  One of all the EFL Daniels

 Hi,

 thanks for the answers. The site you mentioned is indeed very informative
 about eo-file syntax. But what I'm more interested in is the whole
 mechanics of eo_add, eo_do and eo_add_custom and all those functions. For
 example I tried to do this

 #define EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT
 #define EFL_EO_API_SUPPORT
 #include Elementary.h
 EAPI_MAIN int
 elm_main(int argc, char **argv){
 eo_init();
 Eo *win = eo_add(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL);
 eo_do(win,
 elm_obj_win_title_set(Nikotinamiddinukleotidphosphat)
 );
 elm_run();
 return 0;
 }
 ELM_MAIN()

 and while it compiled fine it threw runtime errors like

 ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:1572 eo_error_set_internal() Error with obj
 '0x9500b30' at elm_win.c:3510.
 ERR818:elementary elm_win.c:3511 _elm_win_eo_base_constructor() only
 custom constructor can be used with 'Elm_Win' class
 ERR818:eo lib/eo/eo.c:953 _eo_add_internal_end() Object of class
 'Elm_Win' - Not all of the object constructors have been executed.

 as I'm obviously using Eo/Elementary in a wrong manner, but I find it
 quite hard to understand from the source files like Eo.h, how it would be
 done the right way.
 So, I guess I will have to try harder :)


You're supposed to use elm_win_add at this point to create the object. The
base constructor is explicitly overloaded to trigger this error.
Alternatively, you can use eo_add_custom(ELM_WIN_CLASS, NULL,
elm_obj_win_constructor(foo, ELM_WIN_BASIC));. But that's pretty much
identical to what the elm_win_add function does.



 Regards,

 Jean Rne Dawin



 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.

 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel


Another of the EFL Daniels aka D5
--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-10 Thread Amitesh Singh 
Very nice!! :D

On 9/8/14, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
 On 08/09/14 14:50, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 ReHi,

 On 09/08/14 16:42, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 Hi,

 On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.

 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result
 of my tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
  }

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
  }

 but instead

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API
 somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe
 outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not
 fixed yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin

 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

 You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
 for the destructor).

 I meant Eo.Base.constructor.

 One important thing to mention is that while we try not to, we change
 the Eolian syntax every now and then. Same goes with some of the class
 names and hierarchy, so the blog post may not be a 1-1 to what's
 currently in.

 --
 Tom.



 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel



-- 
-- 
Amitesh

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-08 Thread Jean Rene Dawin 
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.
 
 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
 

Hi,

thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result of my 
tst.c
differd a bit, though. I didn't get 

EOLIAN static void
_tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
{
   eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
}

EOLIAN static void
_tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
{
   eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
}

but instead

EOLIAN static void
_tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
{
}
EOLIAN static void
_tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
{
}

Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API somewhere?
Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe outdated.
Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not fixed yet?

Thanks for your help,

Jean Rene Dawin

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-08 Thread Daniel Zaoui 
Hi,

On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.

 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result of my 
 tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get 

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
 }
 
 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
 }

 but instead

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }
 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not fixed yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin

 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel


You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
for the destructor).

You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
on the syntax.

One of all the EFL Daniels

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-08 Thread Daniel Zaoui 
ReHi,

On 09/08/14 16:42, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 Hi,

 On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.

 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result of my 
 tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get 

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
 }
 
 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
 {
eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
 }

 but instead

 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }
 EOLIAN static void
 _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
 {
 }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe 
 outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not fixed 
 yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin

 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

 You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
 for the destructor).

I meant Eo.Base.constructor.


 You can look at https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/eolian/ for more docs
 on the syntax.

 One of all the EFL Daniels

 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel



--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-09-08 Thread Tom Hacohen 
On 08/09/14 14:50, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 ReHi,

 On 09/08/14 16:42, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
 Hi,

 On 09/08/14 16:16, Jean Rene Dawin wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:36:10PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.

 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 Hi,

 thanks for the explanations. Trying to reproduce the steps, the result of 
 my tst.c
 differd a bit, though. I didn't get

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_constructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_constructor());
  }

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_eo_base_destructor(Eo *obj, Tst_Data *pd)
  {
 eo_do_super(obj, TST_CLASS, eo_destructor());
  }

 but instead

  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_constructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }
  EOLIAN static void
  _tst_class_destructor(Eo_Class *klass)
  {
  }

 Is there a more detailed documentation of the Eo-Syntax and API somewhere?
 Becuase the one on docs.enlightenment.org is not so verbose or maybe 
 outdated.
 Is this because there will be more changes to Eo and things are not fixed 
 yet?

 Thanks for your help,

 Jean Rene Dawin

 --
 Want excitement?
 Manually upgrade your production database.
 When you want reliability, choose Perforce
 Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
 http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

 You should try with Base.constructor instead of class.constructor (same
 for the destructor).

 I meant Eo.Base.constructor.

One important thing to mention is that while we try not to, we change 
the Eolian syntax every now and then. Same goes with some of the class 
names and hierarchy, so the blog post may not be a 1-1 to what's 
currently in.

--
Tom.



--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-17 Thread David Seikel 
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 11:37:32 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:

 On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:02:09 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
 vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said:
 
  2014-08-16 2:36 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:
  
  
   https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
  
  
  I want to comment over there, but it requires facebook login. Is
  this authentication method the only supported on the Enlightenment
  blog?
 
 yup. thats what phab does. phabricator is what we use for our dev
 site and it's written by a bunch of ex facebook guys. thus fb is what
 it supports.

Um, I don't have a FB account (never will), but I have an Enlightenment
phab account.  Though perhaps that's coz I'm an E dev?

-- 
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-17 Thread The Rasterman 
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:04:50 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com said:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 11:37:32 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
 ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
 
  On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:02:09 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
  vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said:
  
   2014-08-16 2:36 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:
   
   
https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
   
   
   I want to comment over there, but it requires facebook login. Is
   this authentication method the only supported on the Enlightenment
   blog?
  
  yup. thats what phab does. phabricator is what we use for our dev
  site and it's written by a bunch of ex facebook guys. thus fb is what
  it supports.
 
 Um, I don't have a FB account (never will), but I have an Enlightenment
 phab account.  Though perhaps that's coz I'm an E dev?

that is irrelevant for phabs blog stuff - it only allows comments with fb
accounts. i didn't write it - thats just how it came.

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com


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

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread Kim Shinwoo 
Reply first, go over later. On top of that, It is very glad to see your
article. Thank you.
On Aug 16, 2014 2:44 PM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:

 About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.


 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

 --
 - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
 The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com



 --
 ___
 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

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 
2014-08-16 2:36 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:


 https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/


I want to comment over there, but it requires facebook login. Is this
authentication method the only supported on the Enlightenment blog?


-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker
--
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread The Rasterman 
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:02:09 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said:

 2014-08-16 2:36 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:
 
 
  https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/
 
 
 I want to comment over there, but it requires facebook login. Is this
 authentication method the only supported on the Enlightenment blog?

yup. thats what phab does. phabricator is what we use for our dev site and it's
written by a bunch of ex facebook guys. thus fb is what it supports.

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com


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

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 
2014-08-16 23:37 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:

 yup. thats what phab does. phabricator is what we use for our dev site and
 it's
 written by a bunch of ex facebook guys. thus fb is what it supports.


I don't have a fb account, so I'm replying here.

First, good to see you posting again.

Secondly, it looks very promising. Good to see the EFL community is still
improving its technologies.

Now, just a few questions:

   - A few languages can guarantee that dangling references cannot be
   created or have its own techniques to detect them. Is the object-checking
   (dis)activatable? I mean, is there an alternative way to call the Eo
   functions without the unnecessary checking cost?
   - Is it thread-safe? I know it's a silly question, but a word confirming
   it would be good.



-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker
--
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread The Rasterman 
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 01:11:51 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said:

 2014-08-16 23:37 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:
 
  yup. thats what phab does. phabricator is what we use for our dev site and
  it's
  written by a bunch of ex facebook guys. thus fb is what it supports.
 
 
 I don't have a fb account, so I'm replying here.
 
 First, good to see you posting again.
 
 Secondly, it looks very promising. Good to see the EFL community is still
 improving its technologies.
 
 Now, just a few questions:
 
- A few languages can guarantee that dangling references cannot be
created or have its own techniques to detect them. Is the object-checking
(dis)activatable? I mean, is there an alternative way to call the Eo
functions without the unnecessary checking cost?

compile-time for efl itself. you have to build it without checking. i'd advise
against it because efll uses its own objects internally and if efl has a
mistake in it you just nuked efl's own internal safety. i highly suggest not
doing this.

it may be that we remove the ability to compile without this check in the end
as i an just see it now. gentoo ricers are going to add a use flag to turn this
off and then we will get tonnes of stability complaints because the rest of us
normal people run without turning the safety off.

it's worth keeping this safety on. it doesn't cost much and is totally worth
it. 

- Is it thread-safe? I know it's a silly question, but a word confirming
it would be good.

eo is. yes. efl in general (evas, edje etc.) are not, but eo is.

 
 
 -- 
 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
 https://about.me/vinipsmaker
 --
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel


-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com


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

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread The Rasterman 
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 01:40:25 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said:

 2014-08-17 1:24 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:
 
  compile-time for efl itself. you have to build it without checking. i'd
  advise
  against it because efll uses its own objects internally and if efl has a
  mistake in it you just nuked efl's own internal safety. i highly suggest
  not
  doing this.
 
  it may be that we remove the ability to compile without this check in the
  end
  as i an just see it now. gentoo ricers are going to add a use flag to turn
  this
  off and then we will get tonnes of stability complaints because the rest
  of us
  normal people run without turning the safety off.
 
  it's worth keeping this safety on. it doesn't cost much and is totally
  worth
  it.
 
 
 I'd like to see this checking disabled per call only, not globally. Then
 only bindings for safe languages would use it.
 
 I'll leave the safety checks turned on. They're worth. Also, EFL is for GUI
 only and heavy computing sensitive data can be implemented without negative
 impact by just not touching EFL (temporally).
 
 Once more, good work.

thats what we do - if it really is performance sensitive - dont go through eo.
it's meant for the outer layer of api. :)

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com


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

Re: [E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-16 Thread Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 
2014-08-17 1:24 GMT-03:00 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com:

 compile-time for efl itself. you have to build it without checking. i'd
 advise
 against it because efll uses its own objects internally and if efl has a
 mistake in it you just nuked efl's own internal safety. i highly suggest
 not
 doing this.

 it may be that we remove the ability to compile without this check in the
 end
 as i an just see it now. gentoo ricers are going to add a use flag to turn
 this
 off and then we will get tonnes of stability complaints because the rest
 of us
 normal people run without turning the safety off.

 it's worth keeping this safety on. it doesn't cost much and is totally
 worth
 it.


I'd like to see this checking disabled per call only, not globally. Then
only bindings for safe languages would use it.

I'll leave the safety checks turned on. They're worth. Also, EFL is for GUI
only and heavy computing sensitive data can be implemented without negative
impact by just not touching EFL (temporally).

Once more, good work.


-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker
--
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

[E-devel] Blog about EO

2014-08-15 Thread The Rasterman 
About time i got back to blogging about EFL etc.

https://phab.enlightenment.org/phame/live/1//post/yet_another_c_object_model_but_better/

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com


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