It has been discussed on the ML (thread: "[RFC] rename efl_self") and
IRC, and has been decided we should rename it to this in order to avoid
confusion with the already established meaning of self which is very
similar to what we were using it for, but didn't have complete overlap.
Kudos to Marcel Hollerbach for initiating the discussion and
fighting for it until he convinced a significant mass. :)
This commit breaks API, and depending on compiler potentially ABI.
@feature
This reverts commit 546ff7bbba.
It seems that eo_del() is useful and removing it was creating bugs.
The issue is that the way we defined parents in eo, both the parent and
the programmer share a reference to the object. When we eo_unref() that
reference as the programmer, eo has no way to know it's this specific
reference we are freeing, and not a general one, so in some
circumstances, for example:
eo_ref(child);
eo_unref(child); // trying to delete here
eo_unref(container); // container is deleted here
eo_unref(child); // child already has 0 refs before this point.
We would have an issue with references and objects being freed too soon
and in general, issue with the references.
Having eo_del() solves that, because this one explicitly unparents if
there is a parent, meaning the reference ownership is explicitly taken
by the programmer.
eo_del() is essentially a convenience function around "check if has
parent, and if so unparent, otherwise, unref". Which should be used when
you want to delete an object although it has a parent, and is equivalent
to eo_unref() when it doesn't have one.
We used to have eo_del() as the mirrored action to eo_add(). No longer,
now you just always eo_unref() to delete an object. This change makes it
so the reference of the parent is shared with the reference the
programmer has. So eo_parent_set(obj, NULL) can free an object, and so
does eo_unref() (even if there is a parent).
This means Eo no longer complains if you have a parent during deletion.
Tom Hacohen
Cedric Bail