Hi!
1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
2) Do you think 2/3 optionals string's functions could be good to have
in ecore ?
- ecore_str_strdup_printf(format, ...)
- ecore_str_memcpy(void *, size)
see you
Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
>> Long and messy. Find better version attached. And as
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
Hi!
1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
function to do that :)
I let the others comment the 2nd question :)
Vincent-
Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> 1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
>
> now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
> function to do that :)
>
> I let the others comment the 2nd question :)
>
> Vincent
Hehe !
Vincent Torri wrote:
> I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
> program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
> functions.
>
> Vincent
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Enlightenment CVS wrote:
>
>> Log Message:
>> Fix up ecore_x_dpms...formatt
Vincent Torri wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
Hi!
1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
function to do that :)
I let the others comment the 2nd question :)
Vincent
Ok ok i solve memory leak.
Stéphane Bauland wrote:
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> 1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
>>
>> now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
>> function to do that :)
>>
>> I let the others comment t
Stéphane Bauland schrieb:
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> 1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
>>>
>> now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
>> function to do that :)
>>
>> I let the
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Christopher Michael wrote:
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>> I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
>> program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
>> functions.
> And if the calling program does not make those tests??? Seg
Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Christopher Michael wrote:
>
>> Vincent Torri wrote:
>>> I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
>>> program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
>>> functions.
>
>> And if the calling program
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
Stéphane Bauland schrieb:
Vincent Torri wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Stéphane Bauland wrote:
Hi!
1) Why ecore_str_vector_free was removed ?
now, you only need to free the returned pointer. There's no need for a
function to do that :)
I let t
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Christopher Michael wrote:
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>> I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
>> program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
>> functions.
> And if the calling program does not make those tests??? Seg
On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 01:53:57 (+0100),
Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
> Thanks committed. It is indeed much faster. I changed it slightly,
> because your version had some problems with empty strings.
I intentionally left out the sanity checks at the beginning so I could
test it without having to
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 01:53:57 (+0100),
> Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks committed. It is indeed much faster. I changed it slightly,
>> because your version had some problems with empty strings.
>>
>
> I intentionally left out the sanity checks at the
Ravenlock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached is a patch to allow users with multiple screens to optionally
> view the full list of clients across those screens.
>
In cvs :)
Cheers,
dh
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Fut
Brian 'morlenxus' Miculcy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> the attached patch allows to disable confirmation dialogs.
> For example you want to shutdown or hibernate your computer, you first
> need to accept the warning. This patch adds an option to the config
> panel advanced->dialogs which allows to disabl
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> after reporting that Esetroot bug w/composite, i updated to current cvs ...
> now i cant get back into the composite menu to enable it ;(
>
> desktop -> Settings menu -> select Composite item -> nothing
>
> it used to pop up the composite settings dialog ...
Did you buil
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Kim Woelders wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > after reporting that Esetroot bug w/composite, i updated to current cvs
> > ... now i cant get back into the composite menu to enable it ;(
> >
> > desktop -> Settings menu -> select Composite item -> nothing
> >
> > it used
Michael Jennings wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 10:59:21 (+0100),
> Sebastian Dransfeld wrote:
>
>> Wrong fix! The user must free ret[0] && ret. No other
>> possibility. The question is whether this function should do a
>> destructive split or not.
>
> I take it you missed the "s = str
On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 20:31:46 (+0100),
Sebastian Dransfeld wrote:
> Of course I read it. My point is that you could drop the strdup and
> do a destructive split.
No.
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.n
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 20:31:46 (+0100),
> Sebastian Dransfeld wrote:
>
>> Of course I read it. My point is that you could drop the strdup and
>> do a destructive split.
>
> No.
Why do I bother arguing?
S.
---
On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 20:46:20 (+0100),
Sebastian Dransfeld wrote:
> Why do I bother arguing?
About making a clean function destructive? Heck if I know...
If you wanted to remove the strdup(), the caller would have to accept
the destructive nature of the function or remember to pass str
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> taking your hint i looked through the build and composite support was being
> forced disabled via --disable-composite ;x
works great now ;)
i really dig the fading and menus ... also, that Esetroot thing is working
again, thanks
-mike
pgpHnHJH1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Kim Woelders wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> after reporting that Esetroot bug w/composite, i updated to current cvs
>>> ... now i cant get back into the composite menu to enable it ;(
>>>
>>> desktop -> Settings menu -> select Composite item ->
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 March 2007, at 20:46:20 (+0100),
> Sebastian Dransfeld wrote:
>
>> Why do I bother arguing?
>
> About making a clean function destructive? Heck if I know...
>
> If you wanted to remove the strdup(), the caller would have to accept
> the destructive natur
For all who writes X wrappers. If a user decides to not link against a
library, the functions will not resolve at link time. So we need to wrap
them in cpp #ifdef's.
It's useless : all the functions here do not belong to the X screensaver
extension, but to the core protocol. You can even rem
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Vincent Torri wrote:
For all who writes X wrappers. If a user decides to not link against a
library, the functions will not resolve at link time. So we need to wrap
them in cpp #ifdef's.
It's useless : all the functions here do not belong to the X screensaver
extensi
26 matches
Mail list logo
