On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:49:09PM +0200, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of the
CursorSlice CursorSlice::operator=(CursorSlice const cs)
{
inset_ = cs.inset_;
idx_ = cs.idx_;
pit_ = cs.pit_;
pos_ = cs.pos_;
- if (inset_ inset_-destroyedSignal()) {
- inset_connection_ = inset_-destroyedSignal()-connect(
-
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:49:09PM +0200, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
> added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
> flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
> could get rid of
CursorSlice & CursorSlice::operator=(CursorSlice const & cs)
{
inset_ = cs.inset_;
idx_ = cs.idx_;
pit_ = cs.pit_;
pos_ = cs.pos_;
- if (inset_ && inset_->destroyedSignal()) {
- inset_connection_ = inset_->destroyedSignal()->connect(
-
Am 09.06.2007 um 00:28 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Yes, the patch looks good, except that the messages are not very
informative (but as a usr I would be scared to see all these messages
in normal operation). And there is a very long line.
Fixed. Note that the
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Some small questions:
Why don't you like comments?
? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours when I
asked for them a week ago... ;-)
Why do you need this complicated logic to set the inset to 0 in many
cases. Won't that end the loop anyway in
Some small questions:
Why don't you like comments?
? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours
when I
asked for them a week ago... ;-)
Sorry, meant something like two lines describing what the big loop is
doing. Not the comments here :)
Why do you need this
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
I guess yes. Compiling right now. If it does, that would be great.
Signals in those CursorSlices, always feel in a strange way when
thinking about it :)
Since you are at it, could you please just commit if you think it is correct?
Jürgen
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Some small questions:
Why don't you like comments?
? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours
when I
asked for them a week ago... ;-)
Sorry, meant something like two lines describing what the big loop is
doing. Not the comments here :)
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of the signals finally like this.
Stefan
Index:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of the signals finally like this.
Sure, but I cannot
Am 09.06.2007 um 13:09 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I added
some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control flow easier.
Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we could get rid of
the signals finally like this.
I am not Alfredo but
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I added
some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control flow easier.
Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we could get rid of
the signals finally like
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
Stefan
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:32 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still have
some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed() signal,
this should be deleted before RC2 too.
Abdel.
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this should be deleted before RC2
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this
Am 09.06.2007 um 15:05 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We
still have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we
Am 09.06.2007 um 00:28 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Yes, the patch looks good, except that the messages are not very
informative (but as a usr I would be scared to see all these messages
in normal operation). And there is a very long line.
Fixed. Note that the
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> Some small questions:
> Why don't you like comments?
? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours when I
asked for them a week ago... ;-)
> Why do you need this complicated logic to set the inset to 0 in many
> cases. Won't that end the loop
Some small questions:
Why don't you like comments?
? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours
when I
asked for them a week ago... ;-)
Sorry, meant something like two lines describing what the big loop is
doing. Not the comments here :)
Why do you need this
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> I guess yes. Compiling right now. If it does, that would be great.
> Signals in those CursorSlices, always feel in a strange way when
> thinking about it :)
Since you are at it, could you please just commit if you think it is correct?
Jürgen
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
>>> Some small questions:
>>> Why don't you like comments?
>>
>> ? Be more specific. OTOH, I would have like some comment of yours
>> when I
>> asked for them a week ago... ;-)
>
> Sorry, meant something like two lines describing what the big loop is
> doing. Not the
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of the signals finally like this.
Stefan
Index:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
> added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
> flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
> could get rid of the signals finally like this.
Sure, but I
Am 09.06.2007 um 13:09 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control
flow easier. Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we
could get rid of
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I added
some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control flow easier.
Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we could get rid of
the signals finally like this.
I am not Alfredo but
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Stefan Schimanski wrote:
>> It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I added
>> some comments and pulled apart the loop to make the control flow easier.
>> Alfredo, can you check please? I would be happy if we could get rid of
>> the signals
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
Stefan
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:32 schrieb Alfredo Braunstein:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
It works fine (as far as I can judge after 2 minutes testing). I
added
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still have
some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed() signal,
this should be deleted before RC2 too.
Abdel.
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this should be deleted before RC2
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We still
have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we don't need the Inset::destroyed()
signal, this
Am 09.06.2007 um 15:05 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 09.06.2007 um 14:46 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Ok, committed. So let's see if everything is alright now. We
still have some days to the RC2 for testing.
If the testing reveals that we
36 matches
Mail list logo
