Re: [PATCH] robustness for GdkEvent.xs

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

(i actually compsed this reply a month ago, but it got lost.)


On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 22:14 -0500, muppet wrote:
>
> > Now, #6 isn't really what i'm worried about --- we know that
> > exceptions in signals are bad, that's why we eval handlers.  #5 is
> > the problem.  We need to be robust against this sort of thing,
> > because it's always possible for new versions of gtk+ to add event
> > types, and we shouldn't crash because of it -- we should at least
> > limp along.
>
> Ouch, I should have been more careful when I added support for
> grab-broken.  Sorry about that.  I did test compilations/runs on all
> stable gtk+'s, but our test suite just doesn't cover this kind of  
> thing.

No worries; there wasn't a good explanation in the code of why you  
had to do it.  I've fixed that.  As for testing it... i don't think  
we can test this.


> The patch looks good to me.

Okay, committed to HEAD, stable-1-10, and stable-1-08.  We can decide  
later whether it's worth the hassle of releasing another 1.08x.

--
Meg: Brian!  Chris picked his nose and keeps trying to touch me with  
his finger!
Chris: What good is mining nose gold if I can't share it with the  
townspeople?
   -- Family Guy