Hi,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
> On 24 November 2015 at 12:41, Nils Chr. Brause
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
>>> "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij
On 24 November 2015 at 12:41, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
>> "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
>>> > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:41:03PM +0100, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
> > "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
> >> > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Sp
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
> "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
>> > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>> >> I really do not see the problem with allowing it to be an
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
> > We'll see how that patch is received. If anyone complains it breaks
> > their thing, I think we have to revert it, because it is technically
> > breaking the stability rules.
>
> The most obvious thing that would "break" is that every clie
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:46:21PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
> "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
> > > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > >> I really do not see the problem with allowing i
Changing C int to C uint is ok for Java. Java only knows signed ints
anyway, I therefore already map C uint to Java int, which is ok as long as
no arithmetic is needed.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pekka Paalanen
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
> "Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
>
> >
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:17:38 +0100
"Nils Chr. Brause" wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij wrote:
> > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> >> I really do not see the problem with allowing it to be an int argument as
> >> long as the enum value 2^31 is not used. Tho