2013/4/25 Kent Overstreet :
> So, to restate - code should be harder to understand to keep people
> from contributing?
Code should look compact to keep people from adding bloat. Multiple
files by themselves add nothing to understanding, other than need to
constantly switch contexts when one file's
There's no such thing as "doing it wrong", there are people who know
how to use macros and people who do not. As suckless aims advanced
users, I think we can safely assume that most people here know how to
use them, and won't blow their leg off with it.
Linux kernel can enjoy luxury of being compil
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Alexander Sedov wrote:
> Personally, I suspect that this is not going to be positive change in
> long run. Dividing into multiple files lowers tolerance threshold for
> adding new code. If before that somebody would not add 500 sloc, no
> matter what, now he can c
Personally, I suspect that this is not going to be positive change in
long run. Dividing into multiple files lowers tolerance threshold for
adding new code. If before that somebody would not add 500 sloc, no
matter what, now he can convince yourself and others that it is REALLY
useful, and make a n
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 15:32, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> I switched to gnu99 for typeof() - it makes it possible to write min
>> and max macros that don't evaluate their arguments twice, and IMO is a
>> very worthwhile extension.
>
> Wait, you switched _
Previously, when releasing Button 1, if only single character was
selected, selection was silently cleared. This is no longer the case with
this patch, which ensures more intuitive handling of this situation, while
still providing a way of clearing selection.
---
st.c | 21 ++---
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 15:32, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> I switched to gnu99 for typeof() - it makes it possible to write min
> and max macros that don't evaluate their arguments twice, and IMO is a
> very worthwhile extension.
Wait, you switched _to_ gnu99? For _that_?
A) Why do min and max need
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:23 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 9:32, Carlos Torres wrote:
>> I like the seperation of term.c from st.c, I agree that makes reading
>> st.c clearer. I can't comment on the removal of forward declarations,
>> typedefs and static vars though the resulting differ
i haven't tried rebasing his code yet. but if i have time later this
week i might try it. for fun.
--Carlos
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:23 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 9:32, Carlos Torres wrote:
>> I like the seperation of term.c from st.c, I agree that makes reading
>> st.c clearer.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 9:32, Carlos Torres wrote:
> I like the seperation of term.c from st.c, I agree that makes reading
> st.c clearer. I can't comment on the removal of forward declarations,
> typedefs and static vars though the resulting difference is legible as
> well. (frankly code in al
I like the seperation of term.c from st.c, I agree that makes reading
st.c clearer. I can't comment on the removal of forward declarations,
typedefs and static vars though the resulting difference is legible as
well. (frankly code in alphabetical order makes me want to sort it
according to code
11 matches
Mail list logo
