Re: [Vala] [patch] G.Scanner

[Julian Andres Klode <jak jak-linux org>]

Am Dienstag, den 27.10.2009, 17:55 +0100 schrieb Xavier Bestel:
> Hi,
>
> could someone apply that please ?
>
> Thanks,
>       Xav
>
> --- /usr/share/vala/vapi/glib-2.0.vapi.orig   2009-10-20 19:22:51.000000000 +0200
> +++ /usr/share/vala/vapi/glib-2.0.vapi        2009-10-21 17:10:01.000000000 +0200
> @@ -2125,13 +2125,17 @@
>               public TokenValue next_value;
>               public uint next_line;
>               public uint next_position;
> -             public Scanner (ScannerConfig? config_templ);
> +             public Scanner (ScannerConfig? config_templ = null);
This seems good to me.

>               public void input_file (int input_fd);
>               public void sync_file_offset ();
>               public void input_text (string text, uint text_len);
>               public TokenType peek_next_token ();
>               public TokenType get_next_token ();
>               public bool eof ();
> +             public int cur_line ();
> +             public int cur_position ();
> +             public TokenType cur_token ();
> +             public TokenValue cur_value ();
Don't they do the same as the member line, position, token and value do,
and are thus useless?

>               public uint set_scope (uint scope_id);
>               public void scope_add_symbol (uint scope_id, string symbol, void* value);
>               public void scope_foreach_symbol (uint scope_id, HFunc func);
> @@ -2213,6 +2217,7 @@
>       }
>  
>       [SimpleType]
> +     [CCode (destroy_function = "")]
>       public struct TokenValue {
>               [CCode (cname="v_symbol")]
>               public void* symbol;
I never experienced any kind of problem with TokenValue, and thus I
can't see why such a patch would be needed. At least everything in
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jak/apt2.git;a=blob;f=libapt/configuration.vala;h=524b204049cabfa50f94c1a2aa31838483dcaac4;hb=HEAD
works perfectly. It may be related to your cur_value() function not
being weak although it probably should be (as it just returns the
'value' member), but I'm not sure here.

Of this patch, the only thing that looks useful to me is the default
value in the constructor. The remaining changes just seem kind of
useless to me.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.