Re: Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 22:32:02 -0500 Paul Sbarra wrote: > I tried to start some discussion on this topic previously, but it > apparently didn't make it through the moderator, so I'm trying again having > now joined the list. > > I've recently taken an interest in the gowl >

Re: Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:17:12 +0800 Boyan Ding wrote: > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 21:04 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > > The fact that we have an undocumented hack like that in our scanner > > clearly isn't great. We need to document it. > > I totally agree. This can really confuse every beginner.

Re: Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 21:04 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > The fact that we have an undocumented hack like that in our scanner > clearly isn't great. We need to document it. I totally agree. This can really confuse every beginner. ___ wayland-devel

Re: Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

The fact that we have an undocumented hack like that in our scanner clearly isn't great. We need to document it. On Sep 3, 2014 8:55 PM, "Boyan Ding" wrote: > Hi, > > It is actually not a fault in wayland, instead it is designed to be so. > new_id's without interface specified in the protocol (su

Re: Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

Hi, It is actually not a fault in wayland, instead it is designed to be so. new_id's without interface specified in the protocol (such as the one in wl_registry::bind) must come with 3 arguments (s: interface name, u: version, n: the actual new_id). That's why 'n' turns into 'sun'. If a language b

Wayland specification doesn't match code generation

I tried to start some discussion on this topic previously, but it apparently didn't make it through the moderator, so I'm trying again having now joined the list. I've recently taken an interest in the gowl implementation of the wayland protocol and notice