Yes. :)
Run scripts (in the order I emailed about them) until everything works...
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM, David Seikel wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
> > On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >> On 01
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> >>> really think/hope it'll
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:17:48 + Andrew Williams said:
> Is this related possibly to my addition of shift/ctrl/n ? I tested it
> pretty well here and upgraded the config version testing the upgrade path
> etc so I don't think it is...
i actually don't know - but all my keybindings are gone in
Is this related possibly to my addition of shift/ctrl/n ? I tested it
pretty well here and upgraded the config version testing the upgrade path
etc so I don't think it is...
Andy
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 at 07:11, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:48:55 +1000 David Seikel said:
>
> >
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:48:55 +1000 David Seikel said:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:47:14 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:55:33 +1000 David Seikel
> > said:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> > > wrote:
> >
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:47:14 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:55:33 +1000 David Seikel
> said:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> > > said:
> >
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:55:33 +1000 David Seikel said:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> > said:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/03/1
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> said:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel said:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >>> On 03/03/16
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >
On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, a
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> >>> really think/hope it'll
On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I really
>>> think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo and all of
>>> the functi
On 11/03/16 02:52, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> On 11 March 2016 at 00:51, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/16 12:36, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:19 +0900 Jean-Philippe André <
>> j...@videolan.org> said:
>>>
On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler
>> wrote:
>>>
On 11 March 2016 at 00:51, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 10/03/16 12:36, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:19 +0900 Jean-Philippe André <
> j...@videolan.org> said:
> >
> >> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Za
On 10/03/16 12:36, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:19 +0900 Jean-Philippe André
> said:
>
>> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
>>> said:
>>>
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
Tom Hacohen wrot
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:19 +0900 Jean-Philippe André said:
> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
> > said:
> >
> > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
> > > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen
On 10/03/16 09:57, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 10/03/16 06:46, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
>> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
>>> said:
>>>
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 03/03/16
I'd be quite tempted by 1) - should it not only be the class or its
children that are able to inject functionality before finalisation?
Andy
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 at 06:56, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Da
Is it possible that your clang is buggy? I'm also using clang with the
following cflags: -g3 -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow -Wno-type-limits
-Wpointer-arith -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wstrict-prototypes
-fvisibility=hidden
Clang version: 3.7.1
Zero warnings.
Looking at the code, zero warning
On 10/03/16 06:46, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
>> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
>>> Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>>
On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 01/03/16 09:05
On 10 March 2016 at 15:58, Daniel Zaoui wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:05:38 +0900
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
> > said:
> >
> > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
> > > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/03/16 10:22, T
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:48:12 +0900
Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> Oh and I forgot, those changes add ~60 warnings in EFL with clang:
>
> CC lib/evas/canvas/lib_evas_libevas_la-evas_object_line.lo
> /home/jpeg/e/core/efl/src/lib/evas/canvas/evas_object_line.c:101:5:
> warning: expression re
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:05:38 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
> said:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
> > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > > > On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote
Oh and I forgot, those changes add ~60 warnings in EFL with clang:
CC lib/evas/canvas/lib_evas_libevas_la-evas_object_line.lo
/home/jpeg/e/core/efl/src/lib/evas/canvas/evas_object_line.c:101:5:
warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
((Eo *) ( *&eo_obj =
_eo_add_internal_star
On 10 March 2016 at 15:05, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui
> said:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
> > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > > > On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > > >> Hey,
> > > >>
> > >
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:42:22 +0200 Daniel Zaoui said:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
> Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
> > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > > On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >> Hey,
> > >>
> > >> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
>
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:04 +
Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> >> really think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing
> >
On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I really
>> think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo and all of
>> the functions on top of it in the next few months, so th
On 3 March 2016 at 20:33, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 03/03/16 10:58, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> really
> >>> think/hope it'll be the
On 03/03/16 10:58, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I really
>>> think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo and all of
>>> the functi
On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I really
>> think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo and all of
>> the functions on top of it in the next few months, so th
On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I really
> think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo and all of
> the functions on top of it in the next few months, so that doesn't leave
> us much more time to chang
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:12:28 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On 01/03/16 10:52, David Seikel wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:05:06 + Tom Hacohen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> >> really think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabiliz
On 01/03/16 10:52, David Seikel wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:05:06 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
>> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
>> really think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo
>> and all of the functions on top of it in the next few mon
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:05:06 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, and this time, I
> really think/hope it'll be the last time. We plan on stabilizing Eo
> and all of the functions on top of it in the next few months, so that
> doesn't leave us much more time
On 01/03/16 09:23, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Overall it looks great :)
> I'm curious, however, about why we need the worse eo_add syntax - it seems
> like a step backwards and passing a pointer and its address in the same
> line seems a little messy :(
I know, I explicitly said it's a b
Hi Tom,
Overall it looks great :)
I'm curious, however, about why we need the worse eo_add syntax - it seems
like a step backwards and passing a pointer and its address in the same
line seems a little messy :(
Other thought - I expect that looking for the result of eo_super and
referencing later
38 matches
Mail list logo
