This affects eo_do() and eo_add() that used to use the ({}) GCCism.
Following a discussion with Peter de Ridder after my talk at FOSDEM,
we've decided to reopen the GCCism (works with other gcc compatible
compilers like clang and intelc) discussion, and after a bit of back and
forth it was decided to make things more portable, at the cost of ease
of use.
For example:
if (eo_do(obj, visible_get()))
is no longer allowed, the portable alternative
Eina_Bool tmp;
if (eo_do_ret(obj, tmp, visible_get()))
is to be used instead.
However:
eo_do(obj, a = a_get(), b = b_get(), bool_set(!bool_get))
are still allowed and OK.
eo_do(obj, if (a_get()) return;);
is no longer allowed, but:
eo_do(obj, if (a_get()) something());
is still allowed.
For clarity, this commit only incorporates the Eo changes, and not the
EFL changes to make the efl conform with this change.
Thanks again to Peter de Ridder for triggering this important discussion
which led to this change.
This adds a fragile test for cedric's fix from commit
3550c38080.
It assumes that all the added 64 functions are in order and that each
eo_op chain is 32 in length. As long as those don't change, this should
be a decent test.
For some reason, they were normal functions instead of eo functions,
which makes them harder to bind, less safe, and just wrong.
This commit fixes that.
as we don't support multiple composites of the same class,
and know at class elaboration how many composites we should have,
we can create the composites array and pack it at the end of the object.
eo_composite_attach fail if the class of the composite is not
listed in the parent class extensions, or if there is already a
composite of the same class. The later because calls are
forwarded to the first responding composite, see _eo_op_internal().
Tom Hacohen
Jérémy Zurcher
Vincent Torri