so wait a minute...everyone fights against this for literally over a year,
and now it gets in without further discussion because applications require
it seriously?
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM, ChunEon Park - Enlightenment Git
no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
hermet pushed a commit to
If they know what they are doing exactly, then it won' t be problem.
This gives the applications a chance to decorate their appilcation easily.
-Regards, Hermet-
-Original Message-
From: Michael Blumenkrantzmichael.blumenkra...@gmail.com
To:
Hi Rasterman,
I live in the East of the Netherlands and I am thinking about attending the
Software Freedom Day. Unfortunately I know to little about the present
enlightenment development that I will not be able to give a presentation and
let alone answer difficult questions.
In the past I did
I have to side with Mike here. Both the decision process and the
solution smell badly. Worse than Mike's tuna breakfasts.
--
Tom.
On 02/09/13 09:48, ChunEon Park wrote:
If they know what they are doing exactly, then it won' t be problem.
This gives the applications a chance to decorate their
On 01/09/13 05:08, Iván Briano wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo seojuyu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Tom, I like this patch but I don't think this can go into 1.7 branch as per
this is not a bug fix that we have been doing for release branch so far.
This can be a precedence.
Sorry for the dumb question but resize callback can't help on that?
Imo, storing pointers to obsolete objects can be very dangerous. But it
is just my opinion ;-)
Vive Valgrind! Vive la France!
JackDanielZ, alias daniel
On 09/02/2013 01:53 PM, ChunEon Park wrote:
I think figuring out the items
Actually I want to discuss about this kinds of APIs for long time ago.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31297258
But nobody is interested in this. ;-(
This API is dangerous but the root cause was from App. developers.
For the genlist/gengrid cases, App can use
On 02/09/13 12:01, daniel.za...@samsung.com wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question but resize callback can't help on that?
Imo, storing pointers to obsolete objects can be very dangerous. But it
is just my opinion ;-)
It's not just your opinion, it's objectively dangerous.
Vive Valgrind! Vive la
I think it's too late to get rid of bad API considering the state of elm at
1.0
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/09/13 12:01, daniel.za...@samsung.com wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question but resize callback can't help on that?
Imo, storing
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:52:21 +0200 Mark-Willem Jansen markwil...@hotmail.com
said:
Hi Rasterman,
I live in the East of the Netherlands and I am thinking about attending the
Software Freedom Day. Unfortunately I know to little about the present
enlightenment development that I will not be
isn't better to just check the focus object afterwards? This
focus_set() signature became strange :-/
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Cedric Bail - Enlightenment Git
no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
cedric pushed a commit to branch master.
commit a007a3af1398e66ba90eae005ccbf31dfb81788a
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/09/13 13:16, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
I think it's too late to get rid of bad API considering the state of elm at
1.0
Obviously. I was thinking about 2.0.
I have a few widgets on my kill-list.
Yeah, me
but that would make sense!
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@gmail.com
wrote:
isn't better to just check the focus object afterwards? This
focus_set() signature became strange :-/
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Cedric Bail - Enlightenment Git
On 02/09/13 14:52, Iván Briano wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/09/13 13:16, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
I think it's too late to get rid of bad API considering the state of elm at
1.0
Obviously. I was thinking about 2.0.
I have a few
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:56:31 +0100
Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/09/13 14:52, Iván Briano wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/09/13 13:16, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
I think it's too late to get rid of bad API
Raster,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:58:55 -0300 Ulisses Furquim uliss...@gmail.com said:
Raster,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:26:50 -0300
There is no way to add resize callback to the object item at this moment.
And sure, this api can be dangerous if app uses it incorrectly.
However, If this api should be used by all apps obligatorily, then I won't add
it.
Problem is, we can't sure all apis are perfect in the world. simply
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 02:52:14 +0900 (KST) ChunEon Park her...@naver.com
wrote:
There is no way to add resize callback to the object item at this
moment.
And sure, this api can be dangerous if app uses it incorrectly.
C can be dangerous if app uses it incorrectly. It's well known for it
in
zeh,
I think you should wrap the callback as well... expect people parse
the complex properties are not that good, otherwise they would just
register the signal directly.
Create a struct and add members: str: ifacename, hash:
propname=propvalue (eina_value) and list of invalidated properties
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:19:37 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com said:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 02:52:14 +0900 (KST) ChunEon Park her...@naver.com
wrote:
There is no way to add resize callback to the object item at this
moment.
And sure, this api can be dangerous if app uses it
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:27:16 -0300 Ulisses Furquim uliss...@gmail.com said:
Raster,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:58:55 -0300 Ulisses Furquim uliss...@gmail.com
said:
Raster,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:11 AM,
Raster,
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:27:16 -0300 Ulisses Furquim uliss...@gmail.com said:
Raster,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:58:55 -0300 Ulisses
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:24:59 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:19:37 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com
said:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 02:52:14 +0900 (KST) ChunEon Park
her...@naver.com wrote:
There is no way to add resize callback
Totally agree with Mike and Tom.
I have even asked for this more than once, got the It was decided
that elementary wouldn't expose the object answer, and had to work
around this through other methods. Now it just gets in without
discussions.
-1 for changing this without discussion.
On Mon, Sep
You are right and it also simplify the code of focus_set. Fixed and pushed !
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@gmail.com wrote:
isn't better to just check the focus object afterwards? This
focus_set() signature became strange :-/
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:29 AM,
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM, José Roberto de Souza - Enlightenment
Git no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
zehortigoza pushed a commit to branch master.
commit bcba4779c8df1efe950b5f4cc1075187ab365a57
Author: José Roberto de Souza jose.so...@intel.com
Date: Fri Aug 30 10:52:04 2013 -0300
Hello
I have some questions concerning eet :)
1) I have a struct like this:
struct Vec3{
double x;
double y;
double ;
}
struct Object {
Vec3 position;
Vec3 rotation;
}
I want to serialize Object.
I have an eet descriptor for Vec3 that I want to use but
EET_DATA_DESCRIPTOR_ADD_SUB takes a
27 matches
Mail list logo
