On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 07:06:51PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Anyway, this isn't going to break anything is it? Shall I just apply it and
> we'll see if the compliants go away?
yes (btw, there is still the XSync in file dialog, I dno't know if it's helpful
> Do we still need the processEven
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 6:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
>
> please try the attached workaround and try and reproduce the problem
>
> thanks
> john
Anyway, this isn't going to break anything is it? Shall I just apply it and
we'll see if the compliants go away?
Do we still need the processEven
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 6:57 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:56:31PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > I know that this isn't in the spirit you would like, but I HATE goto
> > statements. They give me nightmares about my fortran coding days.
>
> this is really just exce
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:57:39PM +, John Levon wrote:
> This particular use of goto's is IMHO perfectly sane, and perfectly readable.
but in this case I can just use break anyway ...
john
--
"This is just the kind of crackpot scheme I've been looking to champion!!!"
- P.M. Hartk
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:56:31PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I know that this isn't in the spirit you would like, but I HATE goto
> statements. They give me nightmares about my fortran coding days.
this is really just exception-style without real exceptions. The alternative
is duplicating c
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 6:49 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:18:13PM +, John Levon wrote:
>
> > +out:
> > + GUIRunTime::processEvents();
> > + XSync(fl_get_display(), false);
> > + return ret;
> > }
>
> actually remove the processEvents() - it breaks double cl
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:18:13PM +, John Levon wrote:
> +out:
> + GUIRunTime::processEvents();
> + XSync(fl_get_display(), false);
> + return ret;
> }
actually remove the processEvents() - it breaks double click and hopefully
isn't necessary
john
--
"This is just the kind o
