This case trigger me a question I wanted to ask before.
Why transforming ownership is nulling the original variable?
Instead of nulling, maybe just change variable to behave as unowned.
You might say that there is a problem in my solution, like this code:
uint8[] ar = new uint8[10];
if (some_met
Just wanted to give everyone a head's-up about a change that appeared
in Vala 0.23. Previously you could do this in Vala:
uint8[] ar = new uint8[10];
// ... fill ar with interesting bytes ...
process((owned) ar, ar.length);
... where process() takes an array and a length field (sometimes
beca
Silly question: why do you want to be an integer?
Most atom types are not really integers at all. I mean, given Atom a and
Atom b, what does a+1 mean? a+b? max(a, b)? a * b? Usually, those answers
are non-sense. Most of the methods you would inherit from the base numeric
type are not helpful. You
Guess the second.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, rastersoft wrote:
> My question, really, is which one is the best to define in a VAPI file a
> typedef. This is: if I have in C
>
> #typedef uint32_t xcb_atom_t;
>
>
> is better to define it as:
>
> [SimpleType]
> [IntegerType (rank
My question, really, is which one is the best to define in a VAPI file a
typedef. This is: if I have in C
#typedef uint32_t xcb_atom_t;
is better to define it as:
[SimpleType]
[IntegerType (rank = 9)]
[CCode (cname = "xcb_atom_t", has_type_id = false)]
public struct Atom {
