Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 05/09/16 16:49, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:13:57PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 05/09/16 12:07, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> after discussion this on irc a second time, raster said that he can live >>> with efl_added. So i

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:13:57PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 05/09/16 12:07, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > > Hello, > > > > after discussion this on irc a second time, raster said that he can live > > with efl_added. So i assume that he is fine with this RFC :) > > As said, I'm also

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 05/09/16 12:07, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > Hello, > > after discussion this on irc a second time, raster said that he can live > with efl_added. So i assume that he is fine with this RFC :) As said, I'm also fine with it. Were there any objections? Or should I proceed with the

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

Hello, after discussion this on irc a second time, raster said that he can live with efl_added. So i assume that he is fine with this RFC :) Greetings bu5hm4n On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:19:40AM +0200, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:17:36PM +0900, Carsten

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 24/08/16 17:08, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: >>> On 24/08/16 16:52, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: >> >> [snip] >> I don't like that

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 24/08/16 17:08, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 24/08/16 16:52, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > > [snip] > >>> I don't like that efl_self is a macro. It is completely unnecessary for it >>> to be a macro. >> >>

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 24/08/16 16:52, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: [snip] >> I don't like that efl_self is a macro. It is completely unnecessary for it >> to be a macro. > > You are wrong. I'd expand on it, but the code is there, just

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 24/08/16 16:52, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:19 AM, wrote: > >>> i agree - it is "self" within that context. within an eo_add() only. it's >>> not >>> used anywhere else (or to be used). efl_self is simple and fairly obvious as >>>

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:19 AM, wrote: >> i agree - it is "self" within that context. within an eo_add() only. it's not >> used anywhere else (or to be used). efl_self is simple and fairly obvious as >> what it implies - you just need to learn the "it is only

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:17:36PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:22:42 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > i am not so happy with the name efl_self. > > > > > > Reason for

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:22:42 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > > Hello, > > > > i am not so happy with the name efl_self. > > > > Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of other languages > > completly different

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

We already had this discussion, and even had this version. It doesn't look as "C-like" as the other option, people hated it (myself included) and it was less flexible because you always had to put it in a variable instead of just create and immediately pack into a box (for example). On Tue, Aug

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:15 AM, wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > i am not so happy with the name efl_self. >> > >> > Reason for that is that

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >> Hello, >> >> i am not so happy with the name efl_self. >> >> Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of other languages >> completly different compared

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 23/08/16 15:15, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> i am not so happy with the name efl_self. >>> >>> Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > > Hello, > > > > i am not so happy with the name efl_self. > > > > Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of other languages > > completly different compared to our

Re: [E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

On 23/08/16 14:17, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > Hello, > > i am not so happy with the name efl_self. > > Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of other languages > completly different compared to our use in efl_add. > People got confused by it, and used it wrong (We just had

[E-devel] [RFC] rename efl_self

Hello, i am not so happy with the name efl_self. Reason for that is that "self" is in the context of other languages completly different compared to our use in efl_add. People got confused by it, and used it wrong (We just had the case on irc). And even if they get a error and see pretty quick