In fact I think I'll use such annotation on a samba4 module I'm working on, so
if anyone wants to influence inline C representations of vala attributes, now
is the time to do it.
Sam
-Original Message-
From: Sam Liddicott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 20 May 2008 16:12
Cc: vala-list@gnome.o
Hello,
I need one of the following macros defined in the file gdk/gdkkeysyms.h.
Like GDK_Up, GDK_Down, ...
But I see the file is excluded from the gdk package.
Why is it not included? and how can I access the GDK_Up macro?
Thanks,
Thijs
___
Vala-list m
Hi:
>
>
> In the case of C++, Vala may be better or worse depending the bench,
> like in plain-C [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/c.php]. When
> you use many OO features of Vala, you loose the speed of plain-C and
> you only benchmarks the GObject sub-system ;).
>
>
Thanks for the answer.
Clément DAVID schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I have made this benchmarks only to demonstrate the performance of Vala
> versus C# (C++ has been added after the creation).
Hi,
do you know what's the reason that nBody is the slowest with Vala?
Regards,
Frederik
_
Hi,
I have made this benchmarks only to demonstrate the performance of Vala
versus C# (C++ has been added after the creation).
In the case of C++, Vala may be better or worse depending the bench, like in
plain-C [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/c.php]. When you use many OO
features of Vala,
Hi Hannes,
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:45 +0200, Hannes Matuschek wrote:
> I've tried to deal with HAL's DBus-interface but got some compile
> errors (compiling the C code).
> [...]
> Fails to compile:
> valac --pkg=dbus-glib-1 -o test src/main.vala
> main.c: In function 'us_backup_main':
> main.c:47
Hi,
I've tried to deal with HAL's DBus-interface but got some compile errors
(compiling the C code).
using GLib;
public class USBackup: Object
{
public static int main(string[] args)
{
DBus.Connection conn;
dynamic DBus.Object manager;
string[]ids
Hi:
http://code.google.com/p/vala-benchmarks/wiki/BenchResults
I always have a question about gobject. How is it posible than Gobject
can be more quick than C++??
It´s supposed than in the compiling proccess c++ have the job done and
gobject need runtime calculus.
In big project like a CAD fo
* Frederik wrote, On 20/05/08 14:01:
> Jürg Billeter wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:09 +0200, Frederik wrote:
>>> I think in the GIO vapi bindings there are more parameters that should
>>> be marked as nullable. For example: "etag" as in File.replace() or
>>> "progress_callback" as in File.move
Jürg Billeter wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:09 +0200, Frederik wrote:
I think in the GIO vapi bindings there are more parameters that should
be marked as nullable. For example: "etag" as in File.replace() or
"progress_callback" as in File.move().
Yes, we certainly still miss a lot of nullabl
El Sunday 18 May 2008 17:01:28 Enrique Ocaña González escribió:
> > > Or, you could use the [Conditional] attribute as someone pointed out
> > > in a previous e-mail. I pasted the answer into the FAQ:
> > > http://live.gnome.org/Vala/FAQ
> > >
> > > Regarding the strange output, I think they are c
11 matches
Mail list logo
