Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
@@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
break;
}
- case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
- case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
- if (cmd.argument().empty())
- return false;
- buffer_.dispatch(cmd);
-
Richard Heck wrote:
> @@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
> break;
> }
> -case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
> - case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
> - if (cmd.argument().empty())
> - return false;
> - buffer_.dispatch(cmd);
> -
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
@@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
break;
}
- case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
- case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
- if (cmd.argument().empty())
- re
Richard Heck wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Richard Heck wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> - case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
>>> - case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
>>> - if (cmd.argument().empty())
>>> - return false;
>>> -
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
@@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
break;
}
- case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
- case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
- if (cmd.argument().empty())
- return false;
- buffer_.dispatch(cmd);
-
Richard Heck wrote:
> @@ -1499,14 +1487,6 @@
> break;
> }
>
> - case LFUN_BRANCH_ACTIVATE:
> - case LFUN_BRANCH_DEACTIVATE:
> - if (cmd.argument().empty())
> - return false;
> - buffer_.dispatch(cmd);
> - processU
rgheck wrote:
This is an old one held over from pre-1.6. I've updated it and plan to
commit now. Any comments?
JMarc and Abdel, the new version takes account of some comments of
yours from way back.
Ignore the weirdness with the release notes. That's a leftover.
rh
This is an old one held over from pre-1.6. I've updated it and plan to
commit now. Any comments?
JMarc and Abdel, the new version takes account of some comments of yours
from way back.
rh
Index: src/Buffer.h
===
--- src/Buffer
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Putting a break point at the last "}" of the method should work in any
case. At least it work with MSVC and it used to work with gdb last
time I tried (long time ago though).
IMO, the only valid reason to not return e
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Putting a break point at the last "}" of the method should work in any
> case. At least it work with MSVC and it used to work with gdb last
> time I tried (long time ago though).
>
> IMO, the only valid reason to not return early is when you have com
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I said was misleading (=wrong). The change was actually to
getStatus(). In this case, we want to return right away, because the
return value says whether we handled it or not. There shouldn't be
anything to do once we've mad
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I said was misleading (=wrong). The change was actually to
> getStatus(). In this case, we want to return right away, because the
> return value says whether we handled it or not. There shouldn't be
> anything to do once we've made that decision. OK?
In t
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The patch makes Buffer::dispatch() part of the dispatch system, and it
moves (for now) just a few features there that can be used if we have
a Buffer but not necessarily a BufferView---in particular, features
that could be used f
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:25:09AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:17:43 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > What about --batch instead? We should btw be more consistent in
> > using -- for long commands.
>
> I agree with Jean-Marc here. In this regard we should follow GNU code
José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:17:43 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What about --batch instead? We should btw be more consistent in
using -- for long commands.
I agree with Jean-Marc here. In this regard we should follow GNU code standard
here - for short commands, like -e
On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:17:43 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What about --batch instead? We should btw be more consistent in
> using -- for long commands.
I agree with Jean-Marc here. In this regard we should follow GNU code standard
here - for short commands, like -e and a dash for long comman
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch makes Buffer::dispatch() part of the dispatch system, and it
> moves (for now) just a few features there that can be used if we have
> a Buffer but not necessarily a BufferView---in particular, features
> that could be used from the command line. It a
OK, here's the patch we've been discussing. I'll hold it until after
Beta 1, if that's what Jose would prefer. It doesn't SEEM to break
things, but, well, you know.
The patch makes Buffer::dispatch() part of the dispatch system, and it
moves (for now) just a few features there that can be us
18 matches
Mail list logo
