Re: Patch For Approval

Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com> writes:

> Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:
> > But it would be binary incompatible to change the value of
> > G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, so that won't happen, so there's no issue.
> > 
> > I mean, I don't really care if you apply the patch, I'm just saying I
> > can't imagine it makes any difference. ;-)
> The problem is that if I am reading the code I will see a zero.  Then
> I have to go to the header file to find the prototype for that
> function.  Then I have to figure out what a priority of zero means, by
> looking at other code or trying to see if there are some constants.
> Replacing it with G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT means I will see that
> 	a) the parameter specifies a priority
> 	b) it is indeed the default priority
> by just glancing at the code.  I don't have to look at header files or
> other code then, and it is obvious what it does.


In the HEAD branch, it appears as G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT in the code.

I don't know why you would read the code for gmain.c in the glib-1-2

In your own code, feel free to G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT. In fact, please


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]