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 a
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 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 ! I got a memory
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...formatting, removed
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
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 others comment the 2nd
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 does not make
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
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??? Segfault
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 too
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 beginning
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 Future
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 disable
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 build with
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 to pop up the
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 = strdup(str) at
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.net/
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
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
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 - nothing
it
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 nature of the
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo