Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 02/11/2010 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Yes, that's a sensible argument. It's also quite impractical at this
>> time. In fact, I had the same idea, and dropped it like a hot potato
>> when I realized how much code we'd have to touch for it.
>>
>
> Can y
On 02/11/2010 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Yes, that's a sensible argument. It's also quite impractical at this
time. In fact, I had the same idea, and dropped it like a hot potato
when I realized how much code we'd have to touch for it.
Can you give me an example of where it gets p
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 02/11/2010 09:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori writes:
>>
>>
>>> On 02/10/2010 07:49 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>
Hi there,
When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
returning an er
On 02/11/2010 09:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
On 02/10/2010 07:49 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi there,
When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
returning an error code wouldn't be needed. That is, we have an error obje
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:27:00 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>
> > On 02/10/2010 07:49 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
> >> returning an error code wouldn't be needed. That i
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 02/10/2010 07:49 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
>> returning an error code wouldn't be needed. That is, we have an error object
>> already, so if the handler returns the error o
On 02/10/2010 07:49 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi there,
When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
returning an error code wouldn't be needed. That is, we have an error object
already, so if the handler returns the error object it has failed, otherwise
it has su
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:58:43 +0100
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Excellent job! I'll base my next patch submissions on this series,
>> because that way I can resolve the conflicts now rather than after
>> Anthony bounced my patches right back to me. Anthony, merging
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:58:43 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Excellent job! I'll base my next patch submissions on this series,
> because that way I can resolve the conflicts now rather than after
> Anthony bounced my patches right back to me. Anthony, merging this
> sooner rather than later w
Excellent job! I'll base my next patch submissions on this series,
because that way I can resolve the conflicts now rather than after
Anthony bounced my patches right back to me. Anthony, merging this
sooner rather than later would help me. No need for undue haste, of
course.
There are a few op
Hi there,
When I started converting handlers to the QObject style, I thought that
returning an error code wouldn't be needed. That is, we have an error object
already, so if the handler returns the error object it has failed, otherwise
it has succeeded.
This was also very convenient, because h
11 matches
Mail list logo
