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.
This touches Edje and also Elementary where part names are used.
This commit blew up in size since now all content part APIs
(get, set, unset) require to use Efl.Part instead.
This is a big refactoring commit, but no logic should
have been changed. Fingers crossed.
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.
This removes Efl.Pack_Named which had a terrible name,
removes Elm.Container which should have been renamed
Efl.Ui.Container anyway, and introduces an interface
Efl.Container instead.
The hierarchy tree is now changed as objects don't inherit
from Efl.Container (it's an interface, not a regular class)
but only implement it. Obviously it is very easy to
reintroduce an Efl.Ui.Container parent class if we need it,
but I guess it should have some actual logic. It's basically
part of what Elm.Widget already does.
Some function names have been modified to look better in C
with the efl_content prefix.
@feature
Cedric BAIL
Tom Hacohen
Jean-Philippe Andre