On 25 February 2012 19:35, Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:43:10 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2012 09:44, Thomas Martitz
thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Am 24.02.2012 23:34, schrieb Lex Trotman:
I don't agree with
Am 25.02.2012 09:55, schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 25 February 2012 19:35, Frank Lanitzfr...@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:43:10 +1100
Lex Trotmanele...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2012 09:44, Thomas Martitz
thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Am 24.02.2012 23:34,
Lex Trotman wrote:
On 26 February 2012 10:31, Erik de Castro Lopo mle+to...@mega-nerd.com
wrote:
Lex Trotman wrote:
I have thought about which types should be automagically present in
Geany without a tags file, and I do not think the intN_t types
qualify. They are not fundamental,
I don't agree with this change, the types are just that, types, not
keywords, they should not be highlighted as keywords. They are not
always available. This change should be reverted.
Cheers
Lex
On 25 February 2012 08:01, Frank Lanitz git-nore...@geany.org wrote:
Branch:
Am 24.02.2012 23:34, schrieb Lex Trotman:
I don't agree with this change, the types are just that, types, not
keywords, they should not be highlighted as keywords. They are not
always available. This change should be reverted.
The list contained types before the commit and the commit just
On 25 February 2012 09:44, Thomas Martitz
thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Am 24.02.2012 23:34, schrieb Lex Trotman:
I don't agree with this change, the types are just that, types, not
keywords, they should not be highlighted as keywords. They are not
always available. This
