The Watermelon schreef:
Anyways,attached the updated patch with the redundant checks removed
and added comments:
Looks better than the previous one, I'll look further at it when I'm
back at home.
One thing I noticed already though:
@@ -116,12 +121,12 @@
for(i=0; iKEY_MAXSCAN; i++)
Resending this mail, as it seems it never reached its destination (i.e.
this mailinglist.
The Watermelon schreef:
Anyways,attached the updated patch with the redundant checks removed
and added comments:
Looks better than the previous one, I'll look further at it when I'm
back at home.
One
Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 schrieb The Watermelon:
Anyways,attached the updated patch with
the redundant checks removed and added comments:
Question: Why do you zip a 10KB patch?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 4/18/07, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 schrieb The Watermelon:
Anyways,attached the updated patch with
the redundant checks removed and added comments:
Question: Why do you zip a 10KB patch?
to protect against potential corruption by email
Am Dienstag, 17. April 2007 schrieb The Watermelon:
replaced the frame timer with SDL Ticks timer,and added a '#define
DOUBLECLICK_TIME 300',so 2 singleclicks within 300ms(0.3 sec) will be
detected as doubleclick event.
Looks ok so far, even though the ifs get rather complex.
Any objections?
Dennis Schridde schreef:
Am Dienstag, 17. April 2007 schrieb The Watermelon:
replaced the frame timer with SDL Ticks timer,and added a '#define
DOUBLECLICK_TIME 300',so 2 singleclicks within 300ms(0.3 sec) will be
detected as doubleclick event.
Looks ok so far, even though the ifs
