On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you
call set_foo with a given
value then get_foo
On 4 October 2012 23:56, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you call
set_foo with a given
value then get_foo will return that same value until
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:35:00AM -0400, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you
call set_foo with a
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Ted Ross wrote:
I'm not crazy about the work-processing function names as they seem to
disregard the grammar. Should they not all be pn_connection_* functions?
I agree about this. I would
- Original Message -
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Ted Ross wrote:
I'm not crazy about the work-processing function names as they
seem to
disregard the grammar. Should they not all be pn_connection_*
