Applied, although I changed to return 0 not 1 (no need to redraw). Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:11:37AM +0900, Seiji Ohashi wrote:
>
> At Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:40:54 +0100,
> Thomas Adam wrote:
> > Isn't it easier to check for this before the loop and just "return;"?
>
> Thank you. I remade
At Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:40:54 +0100,
Thomas Adam wrote:
> Isn't it easier to check for this before the loop and just "return;"?
Thank you. I remade a patch.
diff --git a/server-window.c b/server-window.c
index 7220320..753ab10 100644
--- a/server-window.c
+++ b/server-window.c
@@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ s
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:36:35PM +0900, Seiji Ohashi wrote:
> + if (action != BELL_NONE) {
Isn't it easier to check for this before the loop and just "return;"?
Would make the resulting diff a lot cleaner.
-- Thomas Adam
Hi,
"bell-action none" works like "bell-action current" now.
"BELL_NONE" has not been taken into account in the
server_window_check_bell.
I attach a patch.
diff --git a/server-window.c b/server-window.c
index 7220320..87efd6b 100644
--- a/server-window.c
+++ b/server-window.c
@@ -81,19 +81,21 @@
