On Friday 25 of March 2011, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 03/25/2011 02:13 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Friday 25 of March 2011, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> >> argh!, I meant to say "then things are *not* too bad", not "*too* bad".
> >> I mean that's far less that I would have feared, q
Hello,
On 03/25/2011 02:13 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Friday 25 of March 2011, Caolán McNamara wrote:
argh!, I meant to say "then things are *not* too bad", not "*too* bad".
I mean that's far less that I would have feared, quite manageable.
Ok. In that case, if there are no objections, I'll
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> BTW the warnings in canvas are pretty ugly - it's a template class that
> inherits from some of its template arguments and sometimes one of those is a
> UNO interface that implements disposing(const
> com::sun::star::lang::EventObject&), whereas the class itself implements
On Friday 25 of March 2011, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 13:55 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > It should be the current full list, with duplicates removed (i.e. once
> > per every source of the problem, not once per every time it's reported).
> > Why should it be that bad?
>
> argh
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 13:55 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> It should be the current full list, with duplicates removed (i.e. once per
> every source of the problem, not once per every time it's reported). Why
> should it be that bad?
argh!, I meant to say "then things are *not* too bad", not "*to
On Thursday 24 of March 2011, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:29 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > a list of warnings (duplicates removed).
> > I don't want to enable the warning right now, since although I've
> > already reduced the number of warnings, I don't want to enable this
> >
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 05:44 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> if this is the only big thing blocking us turning on a very valuable
> warning, I'd (personally) say we should just bite the bullet and
> un-publish & tweak this interface.
There's always a way. I see this warning first in comphelper and th
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 20:51 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> Following the usual naming scheme the XAccessibleEventBroadcaster
> add/remove on should have been named
> [add|remove]AccessibleEventListener in the first place, I guess we're
> stuck with that one now.
Hmm - are those interfa
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:29 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> a list of warnings (duplicates removed).
> I don't want to enable the warning right now, since although I've
> already reduced the number of warnings, I don't want to enable this
> too soon.
Is that the full list ?, or just part of it. If it
On Thursday 24 of March 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
> You know - seeing a lot of warnings has a focusing effect on the mind,
> and helps people work on cleaning them up - assuming there are not a
> bazillion duplicates of each of them (are there ?) :-)
That's exactly the problem. There were
On Thursday 24 of March 2011, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Attached is a patch for introducing the warning (quite obvious) and a list
> of warnings (duplicates removed). I don't want to enable the warning right
> now, since although I've already reduced the number of warnings, I don't
> want to enable thi
Hi Lubos,
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:29 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> I want to introduce the usage of the gcc -Woverloaded-virtual switch. The
> switch warns about the following situation:
Looks sexy to me :-) nice work !
> Attached is a patch for introducing the warning (quite obvious)
12 matches
Mail list logo
