Re: [g-a-devel] RFC: AtkText simplification (take 2)

[Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>]

On 06/24/2013 02:26 PM, Mario Sanchez Prada wrote:
> > [...]
> > So, taking into account that you are already working on this, I assume
> > that you would prefer to add the generic boundary now, in order to
> > avoid two updates of the implementation of those APIs. Right?
> It's not that I prefer to do that now in order to avoid two updates of the
> implementation of those APIs, but just because I think it's clearer and less
> confusing from the POV of the new API.

Ok, that is not a valid reason for you, but in any case you didn't
answer my question. So I will not add the reasons to the question, do
you (as one of the atk implementors) prefer to add the generic boundary
now (so probably for next ATK release) or not?

> Furthermore, I also think it should not be a big deal to have those new
> boundaries co-exist with the old ones as long as it's clearly stated in the
> documentation what is deprecated and what is not. Or you can use some kind
> of aliases like what Trevor is suggesting.

Well, it is just less clear, IMHO, having two enums that means the same.
Anyway I agree with Trevor suggestion (will answer him in short).

BR

-- 
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias