Hi,
Cool, thanks for the context - I just wanted to make sure we were still in
agreement before I pushed in this change.
It's in now - we'll get the docs updated too :)
Thanks,
Andy
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 23:49 Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:18:04 + Andrew Williams
> said
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:18:04 + Andrew Williams said:
> Hi,
>
> Indeed on later reading I see it was lacking in detail so I followed up
> later.
>
> It’s unclear if, following rasters last email, he is still in agreement
> with the _count() change but it seems like an improvement so I intend
Hi,
Indeed on later reading I see it was lacking in detail so I followed up
later.
It’s unclear if, following rasters last email, he is still in agreement
with the _count() change but it seems like an improvement so I intend to go
forward with it as discussed.
Thanks,
Andy
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at
In this case I would agree with raster; the original mail could have
provided a little more detail because it is non-obvious to the reader why
this could be misleading for users.
efl_ref_count() is in line with the rest of our naming (e.g.,
eina_array_count(), eina_list_count(), eina_hash_populati
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 09:53:32 + Andrew Williams said:
> Can you please explain why? This is a method that returns a count of
> references but has no mention of count in the name.
Well your original email gave no details as to why it's misleading. I disagree
because i see something like:
Eo
Hi all,
After a chat on IRC we settled on efl_ref_count(
Unless anyone comes up with reasons not to I will apply this change later
today.
Andy
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 09:53 Andrew Williams wrote:
> Can you please explain why? This is a method that returns a count of
> references but has no menti
Can you please explain why? This is a method that returns a count of
references but has no mention of count in the name.
We have ref_add and wref_add that are talking about actual references but
ref_get returns a count?
This is misleading.
Andy
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 09:49 Carsten Haitzler wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 09:46:41 + Andrew Williams said:
i'd have to disagree on it being misleading... :/
> Hi,
>
> Whilst writing the docs we have realised that efl_ref_get is a slightly
> misleading method name as it returns the reference count. Whilst we are
> breaking APIs for our first in
Hi,
Whilst writing the docs we have realised that efl_ref_get is a slightly
misleading method name as it returns the reference count. Whilst we are
breaking APIs for our first interfaces release would people mind me
changing efl_ref_get to efl_refcount_get (as per this eo patch, and all the
efl ra
