hi,
Brian J. Tarricone schrieb:
> Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
>> Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>>>
Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
to explain ho
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:21:10 -0400
Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't appreciate your language, and others don't either. See:
>
> http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
>
> If you can't discuss decently and on a technical ground without offering
> unsolicited personal advice, y
On Jun 5, 2008, at 14:44 , Johan Dahlin wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> [..]
>> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
>> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
>> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
>> application develo
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> application developers with this. It's a road
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:35 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> I do not say you should violate the code
> of conduct or whatever. It's nice if everybody is nice and fluffy,
> yes. But there are also people who are pissed off (that happens),
> or tired,
they should not write to gtk-devel-list, then,
Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
[..]
> Say, this Gtk-3.0 idea sucks. It brings nothing to application
> developers, yet application developers will be effectively forced
> to migrate to avoid problems. You are doing a disservice to
> application developers with this. It's a road to 4.0? Give me
> a break, ca
On Jun 5, 2008, at 14:02 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 13:43 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalist
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:59 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > class QFoo : public QObject
> > {
> >Q_OBJECT
> >
> >Q_PROPERTY(int bar READ bar WRITE setBar)
> [...]
> >
> > Which way do you prefer?
>
> The Vala way ?
>
In a way we being a bit offtopic but I agree fully wi
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 13:43 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalistic advice, but I
> >> believe that it would be good for
On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:21 , Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
[snip]
>> I hope you'll pardon me the following paternalistic advice, but I
>> believe that it would be good for you to cut down on some of the
>> zealotry when defending a pet project.
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> Sure, both systems need some reflection capabilities, which neither C
> nor C++ support natively. I don't see how this point would debunk the
> fact that C++ is a more expressive language than C, and that writing
> an object-oriented a
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:16 +0200, Christian Dywan wrote:
> What about Genie even?
>
> [indent=4]
> uses
> Glib
>
> class Foo : Object
>
> init
> var bar = 0
That doesn't define a property.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:25:02 +0200
schrieb Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> > "bar" using the GObject way:
> >
> > #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_g
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> or using the Qt way:
>
> class QFoo : public QObject
> {
>Q_OBJECT
>
>Q_PROPERTY(int bar READ bar WRITE setBar)
>
> public:
>void setBar (int value);
>int bar () c
> Yu's patch, to *current* trunk giowin32.c (I just committed a change
> that improved the G_IO_WIN32_DEBUG output a bit) is as follows. Please
> test it, all who can. (It should be trivial to apply it manually to
> the glib-2-16 branch, too.)
Hello, anyone ? Please...
--tml
> Index: glib/giowin
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:44:08 +0300
"Felipe Contreras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Me, and many developers hate C++ with passion, if a toolkit
> requires C++, it's cutting a huge user-base.
See also earlier discussions regarding C89 vs. C99 style, specifically
with regard to availability of c
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> "bar" using the GObject way:
>
> #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> #define G_FOO(obj) (G_TYPE_CHECK_INSTANCE_CAST((obj),
2008/6/5 Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> [...]
> > Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> > "bar" using the GObject way:
> >
> > #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> > #def
Hey everyone,
as I said on IRC I will try to post my triaging on GTK+ patches here
as often as possible, for this first edition I'll use patches from my
first go some weeks ago[0]
Small bugs, small patches
- Bug 65818 – rename gtk_window_set_default() and add getter for it
This is just adds a r
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 08:59 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
[...]
> Likewise, you can implement a class "Foo" containing an int property
> "bar" using the GObject way:
>
> #define G_TYPE_FOO (g_foo_get_type())
> #define G_FOO(obj) (G_TYPE_CHECK_INSTANCE_CAST((o
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:30:37PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
> > release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedded developers wont want to pick
> > it
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Regardless, gtk+ 3.0 is a long-term project, probably with a first
>> release sometime in 2010 or so. Embedded developers wont want to pick
>>
On 6/5/08, Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sure, both systems need some reflection capabilities, which neither C
> nor C++ support natively. I don't see how this point would debunk the
> fact that C++ is a more expressive language than C, and that writing
> an object-oriented app
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:37:00 -0400
Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:35 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > > Basically, something like this:
> > >
> > > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html
> > >
> > > When reading this and other Qt documents, one real
24 matches
Mail list logo
