On 04/04/2011 09:56 AM, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Hi,
thank you for replying.
Hi there
I still haven't had time to work on this. However, your patch looks
OK. As I said in my previous email I think I will not add that
additional argument in the constructor, but make it settable in a set
method in order not to break compatibility, or probably add an
overloaded constructor with the additional parameter.
Implementing with the overloaded constructor aproach is much easier for
me. I'll submit the patch.
Instread of overloading, I've written a patch which uses default value for
parameter.
thanks
however the signature of constructor and method have changed thus it is
not backward-compatible. I'll deal with this when I apply the patch.
cheers
Lorenzo
--
Lorenzo Bettini, PhD in Computer Science, DI, Univ. Torino
ICQ# lbetto, 16080134 (GNU/Linux User # 158233)
HOME: http://www.lorenzobettini.it MUSIC: http://www.purplesucker.com
http://www.myspace.com/supertrouperabba
BLOGS: http://tronprog.blogspot.com http://longlivemusic.blogspot.com
http://www.gnu.org/software/src-highlite
http://www.gnu.org/software/gengetopt
http://www.gnu.org/software/gengen http://doublecpp.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Help-source-highlight mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-source-highlight
