On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:18:35 + Andrew Williams said:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think I can do this any longer. Any comment I make about usability
> is met with
>
> "it's easy to understand if you know the internal state/functioning of the
> object".
believe what you want...
On Tue Dec 05 18:54:21 2017, ced...@ddlm.me wrote:
>
> Sure. Do you have a reference or better a link to buy it of Amazon ?
>
> Cedric
Ping!
--
Jonathan Frederick
Student Systems Engineer
Oregon State University | Open Source Lab
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [E-devel] efl_add causing confusion
> Local Time: January 4, 2018 10:21 AM
> UTC Time: January 4, 2018 6:21 PM
> From: barbi...@gmail.com
> To: Enlightenment developer list
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would avoid the name efl_release if it is not to do with object lifecycle
> as that is the word ObjectiveC uses in their retain/release pair for memory
> management.
+1 I also find "release" to be something
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies for the future/promise gaff - I was working from the
> documentation of the previous efl_loop_promise_new which also referred to
> Future.
> I will correct both.
>
> I am confused by the loop
Hi,
I don't think I can do this any longer. Any comment I make about usability
is met with
"it's easy to understand if you know the internal state/functioning of the
object".
My premise is still
"with efl_add sometimes returning ownership and other times not this is
confusing for the
Hi,
I would avoid the name efl_release if it is not to do with object lifecycle
as that is the word ObjectiveC uses in their retain/release pair for memory
management.
Just a thought if we are trying to attract devs from elsewhere.
Andy
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 00:04 Cedric Bail
Hi,
Apologies for the future/promise gaff - I was working from the
documentation of the previous efl_loop_promise_new which also referred to
Future.
I will correct both.
I am confused by the loop semantics. Many times I have been told that our
UI work must happen on the main thread, which
On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:49:03 + Andrew Williams said:
Originally T5301 work was intended to be done a long time ago. But there was
little interest in doing it. Then some interest, then that interest vanished.
Now it's back. I have no idea if it'll vanish again. I won't
On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 07:41:29 + Andrew Williams said:
> Hi,
>
> If we are looking to grow the community don’t you think that “to report a
> bug you must be approved by an admin” might be problematic?
I totally agree. I'm trying to point out the obvious that having to
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Andy Williams wrote:
> ajwillia-ms pushed a commit to branch master.
>
> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=e931fd698d26b8bec0e34239d2f79c059b339a51
>
> commit e931fd698d26b8bec0e34239d2f79c059b339a51
> Author: Andy Williams
On 04/01/18 22:19, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our release page (https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/release_roadmap/) still
> says that we are doing time based releases
>
> "We aim for a 3 months release cycle (with a release on the first Monday in
> February, May, August and November)"
>
Hi,
Our release page (https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/release_roadmap/) still
says that we are doing time based releases
"We aim for a 3 months release cycle (with a release on the first Monday in
February, May, August and November)"
and "Release 1.21 is planned for late 2017".
If we are now
13 matches
Mail list logo