On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 01:18:48PM +1000, David Seikel wrote:
Just ignoring the failed allocation and trying to use a NULL pointer
will likely crash you anyway, but that's just being lazy. Failing
gracefully is generally better than failing disgracefully.
Part of the problem here is that it
On 05/05/12 14:08, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 01:18:48PM +1000, David Seikel wrote:
Just ignoring the failed allocation and trying to use a NULL pointer
will likely crash you anyway, but that's just being lazy. Failing
gracefully is generally better than failing
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2012 13:03:08 +0300 Tom Hacohen t...@stosb.com wrote:
On 05/05/12 06:18, David Seikel wrote:
Just ignoring the failed allocation and trying to use a NULL pointer
will likely crash you anyway, but that's just
On Sat, 5 May 2012 16:15:39 +0200 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr
wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2012 13:03:08 +0300 Tom Hacohen t...@stosb.com
wrote:
On 05/05/12 06:18, David Seikel wrote:
Just ignoring the failed allocation
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:17:29AM +0900, Cedric BAIL wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
is it normal that no check is done when calloc is called ?
It's a good question. In E17, there isn't much handling of this
situation. I am wrong in
On Fri, 4 May 2012 15:04:17 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger
jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:17:29AM +0900, Cedric BAIL wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Vincent Torri
vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
is it normal that no check is done when calloc is called ?
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
is it normal that no check is done when calloc is called ?
It's a good question. In E17, there isn't much handling of this
situation. I am wrong in assuming that on all unix supported by E17,
when it start returning
Well, why the default backlight is 0.0?
It's too dark.
value backlight.normal double: 0.0;
value backlight.dim double: 0.3;
value backlight.transition double: 0.5;
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:35 AM, michael bouchaud
michael.bouch...@gmail.com wrote:
hum this patch
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:20:37 +0900 Daniel Juyung Seo seojuyu...@gmail.com
said:
that's a mistake in the config. it should have been 1.0.
Well, why the default backlight is 0.0?
It's too dark.
value backlight.normal double: 0.0;
value backlight.dim double: 0.3;
value
2011/8/11 Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:20:37 +0900 Daniel Juyung Seo seojuyu...@gmail.com
said:
that's a mistake in the config. it should have been 1.0.
Well, why the default backlight is 0.0?
It's too dark.
value backlight.normal double: 0.0;
hum this patch fixes nothing, and I have already fix this issues with the
default value in e.cfg.
2011/8/10 Enlightenment SVN no-re...@enlightenment.org
Log:
e: some people have been hurt by this default value.
Author: cedric
Date: 2011-08-10 06:02:09 -0700 (Wed, 10 Aug 2011)
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Enlightenment SVN
no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
Log:
* e: Config in E17 could take avantage off Eet mapped string, but right
now the API doesn't provide a way to let the Eet_File open. So don't
hack around Eet API and use the proper API.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
Log:
* e: Config in E17 could take avantage off Eet mapped string, but right
now the API doesn't provide a way to let the Eet_File open. So don't
hack
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
Log:
* e: Config in E17 could take avantage off Eet mapped string, but
right
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:09:01 -0800 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
Log:
* e: Config in E17 could take avantage off Eet mapped string, but
15 matches
Mail list logo
