On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 17:46, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
Ok, good to hear... I hope you'll say the same after all the operations you're planning to do and will do .-)Fatih Demir wrote: > /There might be some features broken, I tryed to avoid that but never/// /know.../// > /So, between have been some changes made by others, my patch is still based/// /on ver 39 not 39.1./// > > Ok, nice, but there are 2 things which should be said: > > 1. We're currently discussins some of the options, features, > interface of gtranslator (Gediminas and me to be honest), so any > patches going in now could be a loss.. > 2. You should _really_ try to keep up with current CVS -- this would > really easify your, my and everyone's life.... Development by > tarball/CVS sources distinction is really hard to do.. I applied a patch smoothly -- so it could be integrated easily into CVS. I get crashes and warnings quite a lot, but it should be easy fix (if pos != 0 or similar ;)) What? Who could that beee.. Hmm .-) Well, Gediminas does already know some of my attitudes (oh, any psychology student searching a master's thesis' theme? Well, you found just your theme ,-)):But the patch is quite big, I did't read all of it and understand. There are not everything good, i.e. You have commented some stuff, and added a new line -- it should be just replaced. Also, if it's just a rename gtranslator_insert_text -> gtr_insert_text, then it's pointless, because someone will rename to gtranslator back anyway ;) internal functions should always be gtranslator_ prefixed -- it's not worth crippling stuff for gtranslator_insert_text for example -- the full version isn't much longer then the shortened version. There would be cases where I would accept this, but if you would see gtranslator_food_order_via_internet_with_low_bandwidth, you would have already done this on yourself I guess .-) But for shorter things, you shouldn't shorten the function names really... Oh yes, for sure, I do also appreciate his work...In general I feel that's the same idea I wanted to do about syntax highlighting, but did not succeed. It's nice to have it written already and just test instead of thinking & writing ;) I love rhetoric questions ,-) You can do it of course, I don't feel like being able to do this ATM honestly. You can do everything on yourself Gediminas (return one could say if we'd play Tennis .-)).> I did also partly integrate some parts of your patch already in CVS HEAD > (the dialog patch part en detail). I wanted to look at syntax highlighting myself and commit only then. Or... Fatih, do you want to do everything yourself?
|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part