On 19.03.2010, at 19:06, imacarthur wrote:
> Thanks Domingo - they look better. Note, for the record, that is is
> *possible* to tell patch to accept "reversed" patches, or patches in the
> "non-unified" style and so forth, but it is generally better to get
> things done in the "standard" style.
Additional note to Domingo: since you were using subversion anyway,
it's even much easier to use subversion to produce a unified diff.
Do your edits in your working copy and run "svn diff > my.patch",
and that's it.
> All - these patches look OK to me, so I others agree, I can probably
> apply them.
Looks good, with two small glitches:
(1) parameter names are missing (suggested to add by Mike)
(2) there's one "Fl_fd_Handler" (lowercase 'fd') in Fl.H in a
doxygen comment
Other than that, compiled and linked on Windows and Linux, but not
tested by me (what to test, anyway?).
> I think we are maybe a few votes short of quorate, so if
> somebody could give them a quick scan and shout out yay or nay...
We have 3 positive votes, that's enough. So if you think that the
patch is okay, I'd say go ahead...
Albrecht
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
