Re: [g-a-devel]Re: [G2R] at-spi RFC: missing return val in IDL

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

On Sat, 2002-06-01 at 07:35, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> 
> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 14:05, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > In attempting to fix bug #82508 (at-spi/"High"/"major")
> 
> 	#82508 appears to be an unrelated nautilus bug.

Oops, #82509.

Thanks for the go-ahead.  I take your point about exceptions,
which I agree we should use for most error-like things.
However I'd prefer to use the boolean in this specific case, since it's
in the cspi bindings/docs already.

I will be revving the API to 1.0 for RC1.

-Bill