Funny how documentation is always the trailing bit. ;-)

This is looking very nice.  Thanks for all your work on this!

A couple (easy) comments:

Just delete the stuff you're deleting, don't comment it out.  Git remembers
what was there before, and it just makes your diffs longer.  I know it's
useful while you're developing.

I'm acutely aware that I'm the guy who called for the optional behavior --
but the more I think about it, the more I think the default should be the
behavior you propose.  It is a very good idea.
On that subject, the name "SELECT_SIMPLE" seems prejudiced by the old
behavior and otherwise devoid of meaning.  What do you think of
SELECT_OK_SELECTED ?

When you define MAX_WINDOW_NAME_LENGTH, I think the value is arbitrary,
just long enough to distinguish between valid and invalid strings in
reasonable time.  Perhaps include a comment to that effect so that future
readers don't pause to wonder on the significance of that number.

Personal tick:  Functions are most readable below ten or so lines.  By the
time I can't see the whole function in my editor, I have more trouble
understanding as I read.  In that light, and without remarking on other
examples of such, perhaps find_window_name() could easily be broken into a
helper function or two (with local linkage), such as a

compare_window_name_function window_name_matcher(size_t& compare_length).



Jeff Abrahamson
+33 6 24 40 01 57   <-- brièvement indisponible le 4 juillet
+44 7920 594 255    <-- will change 18 July

http://jeff.purple.com/
http://blog.purple.com/jeff/


On 20 June 2014 15:52, Johannes Altmanninger <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks! Now everything works just fine.
> The only thing that is missing now is the documentation :)
>
>
> On 06/20/2014 03:14 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 02:43:48PM +0200, Johannes Altmanninger wrote:
>>
>>> Now I have rewritten find_window_name() again, it is much cleaner this
>>> way,
>>> no need for unnecessary temporary variables anymore :)
>>> It works the same as before but I still get the "assignment from
>>> incompatible pointer type" warning...
>>>
>> Take a look at how strncmp() is declared on your system; it is most
>> probably something like
>>
>>    int strncmp(const char *s1, const char *s2, size_t len);
>>
>> Your typedef should be the same.
>>
>> G'luck,
>> Peter
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Ratpoison-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ratpoison-devel

Reply via email to