Le 2015-10-02 15:16, Pekka Paalanen a écrit :
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:50:42 +0100
Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote:
[start]
The enum and bitfield attributes are in principle for documentation
purposes only. The enum and bitfield attributes may also be used by
bindings, but only in such a way that code written prior to the
specification of these attributes still works after their
specification. In other words, specifying an attribute for an
argument, that previously did not have it, should not break API.
[end]
I like this very much. Let's see if anyone disagrees.
Do you intend to allow also changing rather than only adding these new
attributes in the wording above?
While I don't disagree, I have a small concern:
Do we agree that this involves at some point writing a specification of
the format of the XML files?
Because otherwise, if the XML format remains defined by the
implementation of the C scanner, and that these attributes are
explicitly defined as for documentation only and ignored by the C
scanner, this means the XML writers would be allowed to write any
garbage they want as a value for these fields.
As a consequence, bindings writers cannot give any value to these
fields, and they become basically useless. I mean, it seems logical that
the value of the "enum" field should be something like "enum_name" or
"interface_name.enum_name", or whatever format will be chosen. But these
fields have practically no value if we cannot expect this format to be
respected (documentation-only fields can also simply be written in the
"description" field, if they are not used anywhere).
--
Victor
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
