[PATCH wayland] Add "enum" attribute to "arg" elements

[Nils Chr. Brause]

I see.

In that case, I'll have to maintain my own xml file for my C++ bindings.

Thanks,
Nils



On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:28:30 +0300
> Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamuffo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2014-09-03 10:15 GMT+03:00 Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>:
> > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:07:44 +0200
> > > "Nils Chr. Brause" <nilschrbrause at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Another problem with this patch is that while it adds new syntax to
> the
> > >> > protocol XML, it does not add anything that would either explain nor
> > >> > validate/enforce it. (We do not actually use the DTD for anything
> > >> > anymore.)
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, we do not have a document describing the XML format, and that
> is a
> > >> > problem. Would be nice to start one, if anyone can work with
> Publican.
> > >> >
> > >> > The very least, wayland-scanner should be reading the enum attribute
> > >> > and check that the referenced enum exists. I'm not sure if it can
> > >> > generate a nice doc snippet into the generated code, but if there
> is a
> > >> > way to include that, it would be useful. We need *something* in the
> > >> > Wayland repository actually using these new attributes, so that
> they do
> > >> > not bit-rot immediately.
> > >>
> > >> I will look into the scanner code then. That is probably the easiest
> > >> possibility
> > >> to prevent bit-rot, since I never did anything with Publican.
> > >>
> > >> While I'm at that, I would also like to make use of the enum names in
> the
> > >> generated C code. As far as I can see, this would not break any
> existing
> > >> code, would it? Also, that would require the enum definitions to be
> at the
> > >> top
> > >> of the header files (just below the struct forward declarations),
> because
> > >> enums cannot be forward declared. Would that be acceptable?
> > >
> > > Perhaps, if it does not cause problems on C++. I'm not sure, but I
> > > recall C++ being more strict than C wrt. enums.
> >
> > It is, in the sense that it doesn't automatically cast int to enums,
> > so that could break the API. Also, wouldn't it possibily be an ABI
> > break? Afaik enums don't have a very defined size, so what is now a
> > int32 could become e.g. a 16 bits enum field.
>
> Yeah, I think that is another valid concern.
>
>
> Thanks,
> pq
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20140903/3710cc03/attachment.html>