Re: new xforms patch

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Marko" == Marko Vendelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it defined?

Re: new xforms patch

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: > On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > > "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in > > >> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is

Re: new xforms patch

Overall the xforms stuff is looking very nice. I took at peek at the gnome and kde stuff as a result of the change to update and updateBufferDependent. There seems to be an aweful lot of code just to get things running with gnome. True! There are two reasons for it. First, I decided to

Re: new xforms patch

"Marko" == Marko Vendelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it defined? Marko I am just used to call NULL a pointer that might lead to a core Marko dump. I haven't looked

Re: new xforms patch

On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Marko" == Marko Vendelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it defined? Marko I am just used to call NULL a pointer that

Re: new xforms patch

> Overall the xforms stuff is looking very nice. I took at peek at the > gnome and kde stuff as a result of the change to update and > updateBufferDependent. There seems to be an aweful lot of code just to > get things running with gnome. True! There are two reasons for it. First, I

Re: new xforms patch

> "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in >> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it >> defined? Marko> I am just used to call NULL a pointer that might lead to a core Marko> dump. I

Re: new xforms patch

On 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Marko" == Marko Vendelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Marko is there any particular reason for using NULL instead of 0 in > >> a lot of your code? Is this a gnome convention? Where is it > >> defined? > > Marko> I am just used to call

Re: new xforms patch

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: Good news... I'll apply it to my tree. and then I'll do the stuff below: An alternative fix would be by making Signal1void, bool updateBufferDependent; Such that true == "buffer change", and false == "same buffer". [...] There are a

Re: new xforms patch

[sigh] Didn't I tell you not to run off and implement this stuff for a few days so we could have time to think about it. ;-) ;-) Things as they were were just t nasty! I blame you for pointing out just how nasty! An alternative fix would be by making Signal1void, bool

Re: new xforms patch

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: > Good news... I'll apply it to my tree. > > and then I'll do the stuff below: > > > An alternative fix would be by making > > Signal1 updateBufferDependent; > > > > Such that true == "buffer change", and false == "same buffer". > > [...]

Re: new xforms patch

> [sigh] Didn't I tell you not to run off and implement this stuff for a few > days so we could have time to think about it. ;-) ;-) Things as they were were just t nasty! I blame you for pointing out just how nasty! > An alternative fix would be by making > Signal1

new xforms patch

Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and Buffer Dependent dialogs respectively. FormInset is, in turn, derived from FormBaseBD.

Re: new xforms patch

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and Buffer Dependent dialogs respectively.

Re: new xforms patch

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and

new xforms patch

Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and Buffer Dependent dialogs respectively. FormInset is, in turn, derived from FormBaseBD.

Re: new xforms patch

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: > Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base > class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: > > FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer Independent and Buffer > Dependent dialogs

Re: new xforms patch

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Angus Leeming wrote: > > > Attached is a patch implementing Allan's suggestions about a FormInset base > > class. I've actually implemented three small new classes: > > > > FormBaseBI and FormBaseBD are base classes for Buffer