El mié, 15-11-2006 a las 10:51 +0100, Iago Toral Quiroga escribió:
> > > I'll add here some points supporting Check ;):
> >
> > ok, adressing them one by one, since i see multiple reasons for not
> > using Check ;)
> >
> [...]
> > it's not clear that Check (besides than being an additional
> depe
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Tim Janik wrote:
>>> (sometime one property has no
>>> meaning if another one hasnt been setup yet - in which case a
>>> g_return_if_fail() guard would be appropriate).
>>
>>
>> wrong, some proeprty values are intentionally set up to support
>> fre
