On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in
> > >> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is
On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in
> >> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it
> >> defined?
>
> Marko> I am just used to call N
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> BTW, I've said it before but I'll say it again anyway since it's friday:
> You don't have to call your files by the same name as the xforms code.
> I would have expected KDE for example to use DialogX myself -- or
> whatever naming convention exists for
> "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in
>> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it
>> defined?
Marko> I am just used to call NULL a pointer that might lead to a core
Marko> dump. I have
> Overall the xforms stuff is looking very nice. I took at peek at the
> gnome and kde stuff as a result of the change to update and
> updateBufferDependent. There seems to be an aweful lot of code just to
> get things running with gnome.
True! There are two reasons for it. First, I decided
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > [sigh] Didn't I tell you not to run off and implement this stuff for a few
> > days so we could have time to think about it. ;-)
>
> ;-) Things as they were were just t nasty! I blame you for pointing
> out just how nasty!
Well, I did need
> [sigh] Didn't I tell you not to run off and implement this stuff for a few
> days so we could have time to think about it. ;-)
;-) Things as they were were just t nasty! I blame you for pointing
out just how nasty!
> An alternative fix would be by making
> Signal1 updateBufferDe
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> Good news... I'll apply it to my tree.
>
> and then I'll do the stuff below:
>
> > An alternative fix would be by making
> > Signal1 updateBufferDependent;
> >
> > Such that true == "buffer change", and false == "same buffer".
>
> [...]
>
> There a
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base
> > class. I've actually implemented three small new classes:
> >
> > FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Indepe
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base
> class. I've actually implemented three small new classes:
>
> FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and Buffer
> Dependent dialogs respectively.
10 matches
Mail list logo
