Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:15:06AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The subject says it all.
I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect (hope)
that I will have no objection.
The BufferView_pimpl was there to prevent excessive us of #include
in Buffe
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:15:06AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> The subject says it all.
>
> I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect (hope)
> that I will have no objection.
The BufferView_pimpl was there to prevent excessive us of #include
in BufferView.h which is
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
| > The subject says it all.
| >
|
| Hum, this was a brawn paper patch. I forgot to remove bv_ member...
I didn't even notice. And since the patch was not installed it doesn't
really count as a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The subject says it all.
|
| I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect
| (hope) that I will have no objection.
I have no objections per se. But I'll look through the patch anyway.
One note thou
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
| > The subject says it all.
| >
|
| Hum, this was a brawn paper patch. I forgot to remove bv_ member...
I didn't even notice. And since the patch was not installed it doesn't
really count as a brown paper bag patch.
| H
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The subject says it all.
|
| I have announce that I will do that a number of times so I expect
| (hope) that I will have no objection.
I have no objections per se. But I'll look through the patch anyway.
One note though: The pimpl was originally a
