Hi,
On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:14, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
That's really bad news when using distributed objects ... you might
make a call to another application, an exception is raised in that
application, passed back and re-raised in your application which
then aborts your app!
On 10 Apr 2008, at 18:51, Hubert Chathi wrote:
If you have a GNUstep program that is licensed under the terms of the
GPLv2 *only*, you should do one of the following (in no particular
order):
- change the license to GPLv2 or later
- change the license to GPLv3 (or later)
- change the
On 26 Feb 2008, at 07:56, Graham J Lee wrote:
On 25 Feb 2008, at 23:44, Nicolas Roard wrote:
Also, I have to remind people that there is a gnustep/etoile coding
party organized over easter at Swansea University in Wales (UK), and
people are more than welcome !
URL? :-)
At risk
On 25 Feb 2008, at 23:44, Nicolas Roard wrote:
Also, I have to remind people that there is a gnustep/etoile coding
party organized over easter at Swansea University in Wales (UK), and
people are more than welcome !
URL? :-)
Graham.
___
On 21 Aug 2007, at 06:36, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
All,
Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how to approach this.
Vague thoughts, but nothing concrete / guaranteed to work. It seems
to me [and I'm discussing UNIX+ELF-like targets, as I really have no
clue about Windows]
On 9 May 2007, at 17:53, Xavier Glattard wrote:
Riccardo multix at ngi.it writes:
#define _NSANIMATION_LOCK \
BOOL __gs_isLocked = NO; \
if (_isThreaded) \
{ \
__gs_isLocked = YES;\
On 10 May 2007, at 12:35, Nicola Pero wrote:
Is there a flag we can pass to ask GCC to refuse c99-isms ? There
must be one.
-std=c89 or -std=gnu89 depending on whether we want to permit GNU C
extensions.
Cheers,
Graham.
___
Gnustep-dev
On 10 May 2007, at 13:44, Nicola Pero wrote:
Sorry, forgot to put the mailing list in Cc:
Thanks
Is there a flag we can pass to ask GCC to refuse c99-isms ?
There must be one.
-std=c89 or -std=gnu89 depending on whether we want to permit
GNU C extensions.
Nicola answered:
Actually,
On 10 May 2007, at 15:28, Xavier Glattard wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
On 10 May 2007, at 14:57, Xavier Glattard wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
I fixed this to make __gs_isLocked an ivar rather than
On 25 Jan 2007, at 22:49, David Ayers wrote:
Graham J Lee schrieb:
I still haven't been able to duplicate that. Maybe if you're
going to
FOSDEM we could meet up and have a mini-hackfest to see WTF is
happening :-)
The issue was not a bug in NSNumberFormatter. It was a bug
On 2 Jan 2007, at 09:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Ayers schrieb:
Actually I get these failures on the trunk also... So I'll need to
investigate... (possibly associated with my locale settings for
decimal
points?)
Indeed this code looks very suspicious:
// if no format specified,
On 2 Jan 2007, at 10:16, David Ayers wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
David Ayers schrieb:
Currently in a de_AT.UTF-8 locale these tests fail:
base/NSNumberFormatter/basic.m:
FAIL: default format same as Cocoa
pass([str isEqual: @1,234.57], default format same as Cocoa);
where str =
12 matches
Mail list logo
