On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:43:55 +0200
Victor Berger wrote:
> On 2015-09-25 12:25, Nils Chr. Brause wrote :
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Victor Berger
> > wrote:
> >> The questions about how breaking evolutions will be handled need to be
> >> specified as well: how should an o
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:25:51 +0200
"Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Victor Berger
> wrote:
> >
> > What I meant here is that the format and contents of the XML files is
> > currently defined by the implementation of the C scanner, which is a less
> > than op
On 2015-09-25 12:25, Nils Chr. Brause wrote :
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Victor Berger
wrote:
What I meant here is that the format and contents of the XML files is
currently defined by the implementation of the C scanner, which is a
less
than optimal situation to discuss evolutio
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Victor Berger
wrote:
>
> What I meant here is that the format and contents of the XML files is
> currently defined by the implementation of the C scanner, which is a less
> than optimal situation to discuss evolutions of this format.
>
> There will most likel
Hi,
First of all, thanks for your replies.
On 2015-09-24 20:35, Bill Spitzak wrote :
Um, that is entirely the point of this change! The current xml does
not provide enough information so that a language binding can know
that some arrangements are illegal. Therefore current language
bindings do
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Victor Berger <
victor.ber...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After some discussions on IRC, it appears this raises several concerns
> about back-compatibility.
>
> The main points being:
>
> - if a protocol file previously did not use these extra attributes, a
Hi
These are all very interesting points.
I understand that some language bindings might break existing code, if
they want to use the 'enum' and 'bitfield' attributes. But they could
simply bump the major version of their bindings, in that case. In my
opinion this is a low price to pay for highe
Hi,
After some discussions on IRC, it appears this raises several concerns
about back-compatibility.
The main points being:
- if a protocol file previously did not use these extra attributes, and
choses to add them, depending on the language using them it can be a
breaking change (as it wou
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Nils Chr. Brause
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are even earlier discussions about including 'bitfield' and
> 'enum' fields into the XML protocol file, e.g:
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2014-September/017071.html
> But none of them led to any ac
Hi,
There are even earlier discussions about including 'bitfield' and
'enum' fields into the XML protocol file, e.g:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2014-September/017071.html
But none of them led to any actual changes.
I still would very much like to see the 'bitfield' and 'e
Hi,
I would like to revive a previous discussion that apparently died a few
months ago on this mailing-list: the question of adding information
specifying when a (u)int argument in a message is supposed to be a value
of an enum, and which is the associated enum, as well a specifying when
an e
11 matches
Mail list logo
