Le lundi 30 mai 2011 à 20:17 -0400, Morten Welinder a écrit :
Doing a g_return_val_if_fail is fine here. That will give the user a
chance of saving his work. This is in contrast to g_error which is a
sure way of eating data.
There's no work of data here. Programs load GSettings on start, and
Am Mon, 30 May 2011 21:13:16 -0400 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org
wrote:
But I want to point out that my point was never that GLib
should behave like a language with exceptions. Just that
it should let bindings in those
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Morten Welinder mort...@gnome.org wrote:
The core principle that allows most functions to always succeed is
that programming bugs are not thrown, they just terminate the
program.
Havoc, the data doesn't agree with that assertion.
Let's look at numbers:
Hi,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Christian Dywan christ...@lanedo.com wrote:
This is a great argument. There was a mistake. It made you notice the API is
inconsistent, so you suddenly insist that GLib can't be improved further
without rewriting all the functions
It didn't make me
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 11:57 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:42 AM, ecyrbe ecy...@gmail.com wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not a
bug it's a feature!
On 05/31/2011 03:12 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
So, let's add alternate API that allows for failure without going boom
and blowing up the world, and let's figure out how to get that hooked
up to languages with exceptions automatically. Yes, this is made harder
by the fact that it's a constructor,
The core principle that allows most functions to always succeed is
that programming bugs are not thrown, they just terminate the
program.
Havoc, the data doesn't agree with that assertion.
Let's look at numbers:
glib, number of not-crashing on programmer errors:
# find glib -type f -name
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 17:09 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
Man, how many times has this thread happened? At least fifty.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
try:
load_some_extension()
except:
warn(This extension sucks. I'm disabling it
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Morten Welinder mort...@gnome.org wrote:
Doing a g_return_val_if_fail is fine here. That will give the user a
chance of saving his work. This is in contrast to g_error which is a
sure way of eating data.
If that's the argument it's fine. I treat
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 à 19:04 -0700, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
My code is *designed* to actually manage default value. Like UI
has default that people whine about. This is just good programing practice.
While I can perfectly conceive we might need a way to avoid crashing
when a schema is
Here is a patch for this for those who want it.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651366
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not a
bug it's a feature!
So if my desktop is crashing it's a feature and nobody is willing to fix
it?I really would like to have another answer than
On 2011-05-27 at 13:42, ecyrbe wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not a
bug it's a feature!
it's not a bug.
the rationale is: schemas are an integral part of an application or a
On 2011-05-27 at 14:59, ecyrbe wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's
not a
bug it's a feature!
it's not a bug.
of course it's a bug, you can't abort like that a
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:34 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 14:59, ecyrbe wrote:
and then what? abort the application? gracefully terminate with a
warning on the console?
No, you can gracefully show a popup to the user that something is broken and
to the right
you can say that all you want, but it's absolutely *not* a bug.
Of course it is. With this bug, programs crash where they other-
wise could limp on. It's like changing all g_return_if_fail calls
into asserts -- after all, any time one of those hits it represents
a bug somewhere. My log files
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:42 AM, ecyrbe ecy...@gmail.com wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not a
bug it's a feature!
So if my desktop is crashing it's a feature and nobody is
On 2011-05-27 at 10:57, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:34 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 14:59, ecyrbe wrote:
and then what? abort the application? gracefully terminate with a
warning on the console?
No, you can gracefully show a popup to
On 11-05-27 5:43 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 13:42, ecyrbe wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not a
bug it's a feature!
it's not a bug.
It is a bug.
the
On 2011-05-27 at 11:04, Morten Welinder wrote:
you can say that all you want, but it's absolutely *not* a bug.
Of course it is. With this bug, programs crash where they other-
wise could limp on.
potentially eating away data? without schema you don't have a default to
fall back to for
2011/5/27 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com
On 2011-05-27 at 11:04, Morten Welinder wrote:
you can say that all you want, but it's absolutely *not* a bug.
Of course it is. With this bug, programs crash where they other-
wise could limp on.
potentially eating away data? without schema
On 2011-05-27 at 08:51, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On 11-05-27 5:43 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 13:42, ecyrbe wrote:
I just filled this bug : https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225
Mathias closed it as wontfix, this is by design.. i'm told that it's not
a
bug
On 2011-05-27 at 18:17, ecyrbe wrote:
Of course it is. With this bug, programs crash where they other-
wise could limp on.
potentially eating away data? without schema you don't have a default to
fall back to for application preferences and for state. it might end up
deleting
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 17:02 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 10:57, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:34 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-05-27 at 14:59, ecyrbe wrote:
and then what? abort the application? gracefully terminate with a
warning on the
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 à 08:51 -0700, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
First, if the UI file is missing the application does not abort. There
is an error but it can be handled by the application, and eventually
recovered gracefuly. I deleted all the UI files and my app didn't crash.
Sure it was not
2011/5/27 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 à 08:51 -0700, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
First, if the UI file is missing the application does not abort. There
is an error but it can be handled by the application, and eventually
recovered gracefuly. I deleted all
IMHO it is a problem in gnome shell, it should provide some api to
create the settings for the plugins and in this api check that the
settings really exists and do not enable the plugin in that case.
But as said in some comment this is under development to provide
dynamic place for setting on
Hi,
Man, how many times has this thread happened? At least fifty.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
try:
load_some_extension()
except:
warn(This extension sucks. I'm disabling it and moving on.)
Of course, GLib is C. We don't have exceptions. We
On 11-05-27 9:46 AM, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 à 08:51 -0700, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
First, if the UI file is missing the application does not abort. There
is an error but it can be handled by the application, and eventually
recovered gracefuly. I deleted all the UI
2011/5/27 Havoc Pennington h...@pobox.com:
Config schemas that contain type checking and default values are part
of the program; the program is either incorrect, or redundant in a way
likely to create bugs, without the schemas. If schemas were just docs
or something, it would be a different
30 matches
Mail list logo
