Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

[Victor Berger]

Le 2015-10-02 15:16, Pekka Paalanen a écrit :
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:50:42 +0100
> Auke Booij <auke at 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