"Sukender (Benoit Neil)" suits me fine, you can keep this for all submissions if you wish. Thank you.
I also created a small code that adds a callback ONLY if another of the same type do not already exist, but I think this is a bit too specific to be submitted... or it isn't? Notes for JS: well, that happens! ;p - I'm going to remove my local code too... Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ Le Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:13:22 +0100, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit: > Hi Sukendr, > > Thanks for the clarification, changes now merged and submitted to SVN. > I've submitted it with "From Sukender: (Benoit Neil) ... " and for > future submissions will use just Sukender, this way we have a record > of your real name if any query later arises. > > Robert. > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sukender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi again Robert, >> >> Glad to hear (well, "see") your answer. >> I sign *everything* with "Sukender" (Except my official papers, since I >> don't have the right to do that), eventually with my real name. So if you >> agree to do so, I'd apreciate. If not, then just put my real name, which is >> Benoit NEIL (NEIL is my *family* name), without "Sukender". >> Thank you. >> I hope I'll give more important contributions in the future! >> >> Sukender >> PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ >> >> >> Le Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:17:51 +0100, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a >> écrit: >> >>> Hu Sukender, >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sukender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Err... I don't uderstand... My methods don't add any pointer since I >>>> actually chain callbacks (I add a nested callback in the existing >>>> callback)... Did I miss something? >>> >>> No, I missed something, I did a quick reply without reviewing your >>> changes, I assumed that had come up with a parallel mechanism to the >>> existing one, but now on actually reviewing the changes you are just >>> providing convenience wrappers for it so it's just an issue of whether >>> the new methods fit with the "Minimal yet Complete" hurdle that I put >>> up against new additions. >>> >>> The current API set/get is certainly minimal, and technically is >>> complete as you can achieve what you are doing without the extra API. >>> I would however admit that the chaining functionality of NodeCallback >>> is probably something that many users will overlook. Your methods >>> would make this functionality more obvious so I can see value in them. >>> >>> I can't merge without knowing your name though.... all contributors >>> get credited :-) >>> >>> Robert. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> osg-submissions mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> osg-submissions mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> > _______________________________________________ > osg-submissions mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
