On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Because I wrote the code of course! Are you daft!
Quite probably ! My friends tell me I'm a big loudmouth too ... and I
put music on too loud.
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:59:08PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Now BufferList has full access to all of the vecotr operations, that
| > was not the case earlier.
|
| And why is this a problem there, and not in all tens of similar cases
| throu
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:59:08PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Now BufferList has full access to all of the vecotr operations, that
> was not the case earlier.
And why is this a problem there, and not in all tens of similar cases
throughout the entire code base ?
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > The only problem I have with it is that no access to the buffer
| > container is not controlled anymore.
|
| Please expand. bstore is as private as it was, and exactly as abstract
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> The only problem I have with it is that no access to the buffer
> container is not controlled anymore.
Please expand. bstore is as private as it was, and exactly as abstract
as it was too
john
>
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:53:25PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
|
| > > You are getting rid of BufferStorage, right? I think it is a good idea
| > > :)
| >
| > It is really interesting to see code for the first time the day before it
| > gets removed...
|
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 02:00:20AM +, John Levon wrote:
> > > You are getting rid of BufferStorage, right? I think it is a good idea
> > > :)
> >
> > It is really interesting to see code for the first time the day before it
> > gets removed...
>
> Is this another vote in favour ?
I suppose s
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:53:25PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > You are getting rid of BufferStorage, right? I think it is a good idea
> > :)
>
> It is really interesting to see code for the first time the day before it
> gets removed...
Is this another vote in favour ?
john
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:47:04PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> John> This removes a completely unnecessarily level of indirection
> John> (read: bloat), and removes some inset unlocking code that
> John> doesn't actually seem to do anything useful. Comments ?
>
> You are getting rid of Bu
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> This removes a completely unnecessarily level of indirection
John> (read: bloat), and removes some inset unlocking code that
John> doesn't actually seem to do anything useful. Comments ?
You are getting rid of BufferStorage, right? I th
10 matches
Mail list logo
