On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:35:58 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
> On 17/08/16 00:17, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:36:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
> >
> >> This change means you can abuse efl_object_override() a bit more and
> >> rely on it in API. Because while the save
On 17/08/16 00:17, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:36:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
>
>> This change means you can abuse efl_object_override() a bit more and
>> rely on it in API. Because while the save is significant for normal
>> classes, it would be even more signi
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:36:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
> This change means you can abuse efl_object_override() a bit more and
> rely on it in API. Because while the save is significant for normal
> classes, it would be even more significant for object override because
> the amount of shared vtab
This change means you can abuse efl_object_override() a bit more and
rely on it in API. Because while the save is significant for normal
classes, it would be even more significant for object override because
the amount of shared vtables will be higher (most likely, as the number
of overrides te
