Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Renamed client side wl_display_destroy() to wl_display_disconnect()

2012-02-28 Thread Kristian Hoegsberg
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 05:10:03PM +0100, Samuel Rødal wrote: > The only problem I see with this is that the "disconnect" naming can > be confusing as the wl_display handle is actually freed as well. I like it, it pairs better with wl_display_connect. I don't think it's a problem that the name is

[RFC] [PATCH] Renamed client side wl_display_destroy() to wl_display_disconnect()

2012-02-27 Thread Samuel Rødal
The only problem I see with this is that the "disconnect" naming can be confusing as the wl_display handle is actually freed as well. >From 78588a8c322b9304aea658ea96673cac9cc52a68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Samuel=20R=C3=B8dal?= Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:03:42 +0100 Subject: [PATCH