On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:29:48 +0530 Vikram Narayanan <[email protected]> said:
> On 3/21/2012 3:28 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:16:49 +0530 Vikram Narayanan<[email protected]> > > said: > > > >> As the width and height are defined as static, no need to initialize it > >> again to zero. Also removed checks for 'valid pointers' as it is redundant. > > > > question... why did you make these changes? did you get warnings or > > something from a compiler (that i've never seen), or is this just being > > "pedantic" or what? curious. :) > > > > The closest answer is pedantic. :) > > Was just compiling the e17 from sources and just noticed this one. I > leave it to the community to decide whether or not they are interested > in these type of patches :) cool. sure - i just want to know why really. well a deeper "why". if its some code checking/analysis tool that has bitched - it'd be nice to know about it and what it is etc. so in future we might use it or something... as such this is indeed just some "pedantics" and doesn't actually concretely improve the code (fixes bug, adds speed-up (worth talking about) etc. but... it is nevertheless correct, and so it doesnt make the code any harder to follow... in svn it goes. thanks! :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
