On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:01:53PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:51:35AM -0400, Reed Hedges wrote:
> > Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > > However, the wrapper for gncOwnerGetType() returns the enum value
> > > immediately, not a thunk. E.g. "(gncOwnerGetType employee)" evalu
Am Dienstag, 15. August 2006 05:37 schrieb David Hampton:
> Forgot to request this be audited for back-port into 2.0.
Looks ok. Back-ported already.
Christian
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/lis
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 10:54 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> David Jafferian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It looks like that NULL has been there since this function was first
> > created, but something should replace it. I don't know enough
> > about this code to suggest what should be put there, b
Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the record: me too. I'd prefer TRANSACTION over TRANS as a typename
> any time.
Just to be pedantic, this isn't a typename per se. It's a cast-macro
or a typename check macro.
> Christian
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
>> How are these macros now consistent with the type name?
>> Are you complaining that "TRANS" != "Transaction"?
>
>> I'll point out that the TRANS shortcut is used many places already.
>> Did you feel that this was confusing
David Jafferian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi -
>
> After about two weeks of evenings, I finally got gnucash 2.0.1 built
> and running on my Solaris 9 x86 PC. But upon attempting to bring
> up the Edit->Preferences dialog, it received a SIGSEGV :
>
[snip]
>
> I believe Owen's blunt response to
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 01:23:20PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >The arguments that point to structs defined in the same module as the
>> >function being wrapped are typed as taking a pointer
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think so. I think the newer swig was just needed to generate the
> runtime. I was going to ask you to exercise the business module
> anyway, once I addressed some bugs that are obvious, so you can always
> try 1.3.24 and see if it works. :)
Oh, I
Chris Shoemaker wrote
> Bottom Line:
>
> Given the insignificance of the practical difference it would make,
> I'm inclined to take the existing copyright notices at face value, and
> to not change any existing copyright notices unless the actual
> copyright holder (whomever or whatever that may be
