On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
o On 16 Sep 2004 20:26:03 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
o >
o > o > how do you account for endianness?
o > o
o > o Please don't worry about endianness, at least not in this thread.
o > o Endianness and bits-in-the-integer is something that sh
o > how do you account for endianness?
o
o Please don't worry about endianness, at least not in this thread.
o Endianness and bits-in-the-integer is something that should be worried
o in the lowest layer regardless of the event.
True, although endianness is no more or less a problem than structure
On 16 Sep 2004 20:26:03 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
>
> o > how do you account for endianness?
> o
> o Please don't worry about endianness, at least not in this thread.
> o Endianness and bits-in-the-integer is something that should be worried
> o in the lowest layer regardless of the
On 16 Sep 2004 19:45:10 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
>
> how do you account for endianness?
Please don't worry about endianness, at least not in this thread.
Endianness and bits-in-the-integer is something that should be worried
in the lowest layer regardless of the event.
> With thi
o Maybe Dominik has another solution, but my "best" solution is
o something like this. Send all bits packed by hand (not C structure),
o and send the scheme using the described MX_WINDOW_FLAG event.
Yeah, we're on the same page, for what my novice opinion is worth. The
only thing I would think was
[I suppose Jason should approve these messages to the list.]
On 16 Sep 2004 17:02:57 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
>
> I go back and forth about this. On the one hand, dumping the C structure
> is the most efficient way to take care of shipping this kind of data. On
> the other hand, m
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 16 Sep 2004 15:11:56 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
> >
> > I reiterate the suggestion that this be done on module startup, rather
> > than by file generation. Then, rather than adding a file to the
> > distribution, you simply generate a
o [I move this discussion to fvwm-workers@ not to scare readers.]
Missed which list we were on. Thanks.
o This is a good suggestion, but it adds more than 300 events to modules
o even if they are not interested in window flag bits.
That's true, although 300 events on startup isn't so bad. I'm no
On 16 Sep 2004 15:11:56 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
>
> o But I really like your suggestion about a C program which will
> o generate a perl only FVWM::WindowFlags, and I will look into doing so.
>
> I reiterate the suggestion that this be done on module startup, rather
> than by fil
On 16 Sep 2004 00:20:53 +1000, Scott Smedley wrote:
>
> > > o I am writing a fvwm perl module and anticipate wanting to parse the
> > > o window_flags data upon receiving each M_ADD_WINDOW event
>
> > The proper solution is to serialize the flags without dumping C
> > structures. Here is a discus
> > o I am writing a fvwm perl module and anticipate wanting to parse the
> > o window_flags data upon receiving each M_ADD_WINDOW event
> The proper solution is to serialize the flags without dumping C
> structures. Here is a discussion:
> http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/archive/0407/msg00186.html
L
11 matches
Mail list logo
