From: Gustavo S. B. <bar...@pr...> - 2012-02-16 13:36:36
|
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Tom Hacohen <tom...@sa...> wrote: > On 16/02/12 15:14, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >> >> nooooooooohhhh.... ugly, needless! :-( >> >> > > Consistency.... In the case of multi-level inheritance, having: > > type->version = bla; > ANIMAL(type)->eat = _eat; > HUMAN(type)->poop = _poop; > is better than I still think it's better to have the _ANIMAL_TYPE explicit in the case above... but maybe it's just me. > _HUMAN_TYPE.parent_class.parent_class.version = bla; > _HUMAN_TYPE.parent_class.eat = eat; > _HUMAN_TYPE.poop = poop; yeah, I know you dislike it... but that should be done to remember you that people shouldn't be writing apps in C :-) > Or even worse, when there are more than 3 levels (3 levels will be wasted on > Eina_Object -> Evas_Object -> Elm_Widget anyway...), so we'll have way > more... argh... see why I complain about using a single object model for everything? So far we have Evas_Object -> Elm_Widget, then we'll have 1 level more. anyway, the evas case is bogus as we can't break Evas_Smart_Class and Evas_Object until 2.0 :-) -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: bar...@gm... Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 |