On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 18:17, Nick Treleaven <nick.trelea...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:10:22 +0200 > Jiří Techet <tec...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > BTW, why do you destroy the dialog instead of hiding it? >> >> It's just that I can write >> >> if (switch_dialog) >> >> instead of >> >> if (switch_dialog && GTK_WIDGET_VISIBLE(switch_dialog)) >> >> but I can change that if your preference is different. > > When I wrote the code I assumed it would be faster to keep the dialog > than reconstruct it each time, but I didn't do any benchmarking.
Optimizations like this would make sense only if you were trying to open the window 1000-times per second, otherwise the performance difference is absolutely unimportant. > > Another general issue is that doing more than one change in a > 'patch' makes it harder to review. I wanted to make the code a bit more readable, that's why there are more changes. For instance I renamed switch_dialog_cancelled to switch_in_progress (and inverted the boolean value) because the name was a bit confusing (switch_dialog_cancelled is set to FALSE [read "uncancelled", which is a bit ugly] 600ms before the switch dialog actually appears). If you wish, I can try to split it into more patches, I'm just afraid I introduce some extra bugs on the way. I've also noticed that I mix spaces and tabs for indents - I'll fix that. Regards, Jiri > > Regards, > Nick > _______________________________________________ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel