nash schrieb:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 13:28 -0500, Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
===
RCS file: /cvs/e/e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore/Ecore.h,v
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 13:28 -0500, Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
===
RCS file: /cvs/e/e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore/Ecore.h,v
retrieving revision 1.57
Enlightenment CVS ha scritto:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
Dir : e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore_file
Modified Files:
Ecore_File.h
Log Message:
remove old api macros
Peter Wehrfritz ha scritto:
Dave schrieb:
Enlightenment CVS ha scritto:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
Dir : e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore_file
Modified Files:
Ecore_File.h
Log Message:
remove old api macros
Dave schrieb:
Enlightenment CVS ha scritto:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
Dir : e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore_file
Modified Files:
Ecore_File.h
Log Message:
remove old api macros
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:
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
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 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
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
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
Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : pfritz
Project : e17
Module : libs/ecore
Dir : e17/libs/ecore/src/lib/ecore
Modified Files:
Ecore_Str.h ecore_str.c
Log Message:
add ecore_str_split(), thanks to rookmoot
On Monday, 12 March 2007, at 21:06:46 (+0100),
St?phane Bauland wrote:
+char**
+ecore_str_split(const char *string, const char *delimiter, int max_tokens)
+{
+ char **str_array = NULL;
+ char *s;
+ size_t n = 0;
+ int max = max_tokens;
+ const char *remainder;
+
Long and messy. Find better version attached. And as a bonus, you
only have to free the array pointer and its first element.
Quickie test program supplied also.
Michael
Thanks committed. It is indeed much faster. I changed it slightly,
because your version had some problems with
20 matches
Mail list logo
