On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 03:05, Tim Janik wrote: > O > > Which is a significant saving for such a tiny patch... > > looks good and makes sense to me. i'd just not call it > g_return_failed_internal, that sounds as if a "return" > failed. what's bad about "g_return_if_fail_internal" ? I want with g_return_if_fail_warning(). Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part