[Xcb] XCB naming conventions

[Jamey Sharp]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 09:25:15PM +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> >Thoughts on CARD8 etc.? It would be good if we were using a different
> >name than Xlib uses: the current hack to make that work is painful.
> 
> using the same names than the C99 types is good too (or close to)
> int8, uint8, etc...
> I don't think that the '_t' of the C types is usefull.

There's no reason to pick names almost but not quite exactly like C99:
if we're going to do that we should just use the C99 names. So I guess
the question is whether folks have arguments in favor of using names
derived from the protocol specification. My only argument is that XCB's
API ought to be largely "guessable" from reading the protocol
specification. Switching to C99 names probably doesn't violate that,
though.

> >I also want feedback from others on how awful this mechanical change to
> >the API is for them though.
> 
> For me, there is no problem. I can change evas and ecore. And in 1 day, we 
> can modify xcb-utils et xcb-demo. And if a (perl, sed ,etc..)script can be 
> written to change that automatically, it will be even simpler.

You're one of the proposers: I wasn't asking you. ;-)

> Do you think that Josh can handle that in time ? He is our xsl master, so 
> he is the one that will do that quickly.

Josh is very busy: he's working full-time at IBM at the moment, and we
need him in other projects around here too. :-)

I'd like to see the proponents of this idea have a go at hacking the XSL
first. You don't have to get it perfect, but get the work started.

--Jamey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20060913/ee774444/attachment.pgp