|mixin Efl.Access.Widget.Action |├ (P) elm_actions @beta
Description
Description
| Status | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | None | T7866 efl.ui.nstate | ||
| Resolved | None | T7846 efl.ui.button | ||
| Open | None | T7510 evaluate stabilization potential of efl.ui classes and dependencies | ||
| Open | None | T7867 efl.ui.radio | ||
| Open | None | T7865 efl.ui.check | ||
| Open | None | T7873 efl.ui.image | ||
| Open | cedric | T7885 efl.ui.list_view | ||
| Open | None | T7893 efl.ui.slider | ||
| Open | None | T8097 efl_ui_spin_button | ||
| Open | None | T7897 efl.ui.spin | ||
| Open | None | T7586 efl.access.widget.action |
Comment Actions
Seems pretty simple, even thought it is not clear what is the difference between elm_actions and the actions in the parent Efl.Acess.Action.
In any case, the elm prefix should definitely be removed from the API.
Comment Actions
elm_actions_get(of efl.access.widget.action) returns "Efl_Access_Action_Data * ",
and actions_get(of efl.access.action) returns "Eina_List * " of action names....
I think elm_actions should be changed some internal function in C world. (not as a EO property).
As its description (in eo) talks, it is just a "/* C-only, internal API */".
@stanluk @Jaehyun_Cho
Could you check whether this mixin can be rearranged properly ?