https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744932
--- Comment #23 from Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Owen Taylor from comment #21)
> Review of attachment 299278 [details] [review]:
>
> ::: src/backends/meta-cursor-tracker.c
> @@ +90,3 @@
> + {
> + g_object_ref (displayed_cursor);
> + tracker->displayed_cursor = displayed_cursor;
>
> g_object_returns the ref'ed object as well - not sure if this change is
> because you aren't aware of that or object to that stylistically.
Is it a stylistic guideline to do o = g_object_ref (o)? I was aware of it
returning the object, but assumed relying on the side effect was enough. If the
guideline is to do o = g_object_ref (o) I can change it.
>
> ::: src/backends/meta-cursor.c
> @@ +54,3 @@
> +} MetaCursorImage;
> +
> +struct _MetaCursorSpritePrivate
>
> This is OK, but to express my opinion, I don't really see any reason to use
> a private structure - private structures are basically useful for publicly
> derivable objects where you need to have the object class in a public
> header. MetaCursorSprite isn't derivable and it isn't even public.
The point of making it private is to not tempt anyone to use
cursor_sprite->internal_data and instead use a provided API. I think this makes
sense even if the object is not exposed publicly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
wayland-bugs mailing list
wayland-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-bugs
