Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

[Auke Booij]

On 1 October 2015 at 20:00, Nils Chr. Brause <nilschrbrause at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since Auke's patchset proposalis the most recent, let's take that one as
>> the candidate for landing.  Gentlemen, I'd like to ask you to review
>> these three patches [5,6,7] and either give your Reviewed-by's or flag
>> specific improvements needed.  If you have a more conceptual
>> disagreement, and don't think the patchset is landable as implemented,
>> please raise that issue asap too.
>
> There are some enum attributes missing, namely:
> - wl_shm_pool::create_buffer::format (it's wl_shm::format)
> - wl_shell_surface::set_fullscreen::method (it's
> wl_shell_surface::fullscreen_method)
> - wl_surface::set_buffer_transform::transform (it's wl_output::transform)

wl_shell_surface::set_fullscreen::method is a mistake by me. You are
right, that should have been in there. The reason I left out the other
two is because of what you write here:

> I would prefer, if the enum attributes would also name the interface,
> where the enum can be found, e.g.:
>     <arg name="format" type="uint" enum="wl_shm.format"/>
> If two enums in different interfaces happen to have the same name (if
> that's possible?), this would lead to ambiguities otherwise. Also a
> scanner wouldn't have to look up the interface name that way.

While in principle I think this is a great idea, this will need a few
specifications, which is why I decided not to add those in just yet.
Are cross-XML references allowed in this sense? In that case, the
scanner cannot verify their correctness, since only the current XML
file is available to it. Additionally, moving a certain interface from
xdg_shell to the core wayland protocol would now mean potentially
having to weaken the type safety of an interface, or having to copy
the enum over.