On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Axel Simon <axel.si...@in.tum.de> wrote: > > On 26.01.2014, at 08:23, Donald Allen <donaldcal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, let's remove this assertion and any other assertion that you think is >>> out-of-place. If this does not affect all callbacks, then maybe we can have >>> a comment in the C code saying why the iterators may have a different time >>> stamp so that people don't put the assertion back in if they eyeball the >>> code in the future. >>> >>> Can you send a patch? >> >> I don't understand why you need a patch from me. I have no opinion >> about any assertions other than the one I tripped over and I've said >> that I think it should be removed and you've agreed. It's a one line >> delete. Why do you need a patch? >> > > Ok, I thought there might be other assertions that you think should not be > there. I'm sure we can remove just that one assertion ourselves.
Good. I made no attempt to understand the code beyond finding the assertion that failed and guessing (without real supporting analysis) what the problem was, which led to my conclusion that the assertion was incorrect. I look forward to the corrected version, which will allow me to proceed. /Don > > Cheers, > Axel > >> /Don >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Axel >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Gtk2hs-devel mailing list Gtk2hs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk2hs-devel
