On Jan 6, 2010, at 23:15 , Alan W. Irwin wrote:
I applied the second version you sent me off list (without the
interfering
linewraps) and it seemed to work well. I restyled one line consistent
with our code style (as enforced by scripts/style_source.sh --
apply), and
committed the result (
The attached patch exposes XML_DECL to cmake as a user settable
option. This allows "make validate" to be used on systems that have
xml.dcl in locations other than "/usr/share/xml/declaration/
xml.dcl". For example, on Macs that have installed OpenSP via
MacPorts, the file will be in "/opt
On Jan 6, 2010, at 23:51 , Arjen Markus wrote:
> David, you should probably use these two as a starting point for your
> work.
Thanks, Arjen, I agree.
Dave
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Co
On Jan 6, 2010, at 23:14 , Maurice LeBrun wrote:
> My only suggestion is to not worry about the performance issues in
> function
> evaluation.. after all you've got a system call somewhere down the
> line to
> actually draw something. In my experience that's usually where the
> worst (and
On Jan 7, 2010, at 15:38 , David MacMahon wrote:
> This also allows one to specify the docbook 4.2 catalog by
> prepending "-c /path/to/docbook-42.cat " to XML_DECL. It's a
> little bit of a cheat; the catalog should probably get it's own
> cmake variable (or copy it into doc/docbook/src/c
On 2010-01-07 15:34-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
> Thank for telling me about scripts/style_source.sh. I notice that it
> requires uncrustify 0.53, but MacPorts is up to version 0.54 of uncrustify.
> Do you know if it's truly incompatible with 0.54 or has it just not been
> tried yet? If necess
On 2010-01-07 15:38-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
> The attached patch exposes XML_DECL to cmake as a user settable option. This
> allows "make validate" to be used on systems that have xml.dcl in locations
> other than "/usr/share/xml/declaration/xml.dcl". For example, on Macs that
> have insta
On 2010-01-07 15:34-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
>> Do you have a suggestion about the best place to document this new
>> functionality in our DocBook-generated documentation?
>
> Some would say that you should have rejected my patch because it didn't
> include documentation! =8-O
We try to use "g
