> On 19 Dec 2013, at 02:05, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
>
> 2013/12/18 Kurt Pattyn :
>> For a lot of the standard C functions, Microsoft has implemented "safe"
>> versions.
>> Functions like sprintf, scanf, strcpy, aso have "safe" counterparts with an
>> _s suffix: sprintf_s, scanf_s, aso
>> When
2013/12/18 Andreas Aardal Hanssen :
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 22:07, Rayner Pupo Gómez wrote:
>
>>> I've discovered that with Qt5 I get a different order of mouse events on
>>> a QWidget than with Qt4 (openSuse 13.1 Linux, X11):
>>> double clicking a widget results in Qt4 in:
>>> mousePressEvent
>>> mo
On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 23:05:28, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> 2013/12/18 Kurt Pattyn :
> > For a lot of the standard C functions, Microsoft has implemented "safe"
> > versions. Functions like sprintf, scanf, strcpy, aso have "safe"
> > counterparts with an _s suffix: sprintf_s, scanf_s
On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 17:03:56, Alex Montgomery wrote:
> I especially like the idea of creating an ignore list for valgrind if we
> could use it for unit tests. Then at least people would have to be
> conscious about the memory leaks they create and add them to the valgrind
> igno
2013/12/18 Kurt Pattyn :
> For a lot of the standard C functions, Microsoft has implemented "safe"
> versions.
> Functions like sprintf, scanf, strcpy, aso have "safe" counterparts with an
> _s suffix: sprintf_s, scanf_s, aso
> When the "non-safe" functions are used, the Microsoft compiler genera
I especially like the idea of creating an ignore list for valgrind if we
could use it for unit tests. Then at least people would have to be
conscious about the memory leaks they create and add them to the valgrind
ignore list if they are intentional.
___
On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 16:41:08, Alex Montgomery wrote:
> I think Thiago made a great point when he said, "Objects not properly
> destroyed at shutdown could be an indication of something else wrong". The
> thing that scares me most about the philosophy that we don't have to delete
Hello,
I think Thiago made a great point when he said, "Objects not properly
destroyed at shutdown could be an indication of something else wrong". The
thing that scares me most about the philosophy that we don't have to delete
reachable dynamically allocated objects is that those objects never ha
On Wednesday 18 December 2013 09:34:37 Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 01:22, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > If it turns out that the failure to destroy is harmless, I'm not sure we
> > should do anything. If it's harmless, that means the extra work required
> > to
> > free the memory is was
On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 20:45:35, Lisandro Damián Nicanor
Pérez Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 December 2013 14:32:41 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 December 2013 16:56:23 Hausmann Simon wrote:
> > > Note that this talks about the _use_ of the s
On Wednesday 18 December 2013 14:32:41 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 December 2013 16:56:23 Hausmann Simon wrote:
> > Note that this talks about the _use_ of the software,which is something
> > that no user of Qt will ever do. (it's not part of any library and iirc
>
On 18 Dec 2013, at 22:07, Rayner Pupo Gómez wrote:
>> I've discovered that with Qt5 I get a different order of mouse events on
>> a QWidget than with Qt4 (openSuse 13.1 Linux, X11):
>> double clicking a widget results in Qt4 in:
>> mousePressEvent
>> mouseReleaseEvent
>> mouseDoubleClickEvent
> I've discovered that with Qt5 I get a different order of mouse events on
> a QWidget than with Qt4 (openSuse 13.1 Linux, X11):
> double clicking a widget results in Qt4 in:
> mousePressEvent
> mouseReleaseEvent
> mouseDoubleClickEvent
> mousePressEvent
> mouseReleaseEvent
> but in Qt5 in:
> m
On 12/18/2013 07:16 AM, Martin Koller wrote:
> I've discovered that with Qt5 I get a different order of mouse events on
> a QWidget than with Qt4 (openSuse 13.1 Linux, X11):
> double clicking a widget results in Qt4 in:
> mousePressEvent
> mouseReleaseEvent
> mouseDoubleClickEvent
> mousePressE
I don't know about "ultimate," but he is certainly an excellent reviewer, so
that hasn't changed.
martin
From: lp...@archlinux.us [lp...@archlinux.us] on behalf of Laszlo Papp
[lp...@kde.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:27 PM
To: Knoll Lars
Cc: S
OK, so not officially, but people were recommending Jerome as the
"ultimate" reviewer for doc changes in the past. I am still interested
in why that is changing now.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Yes, Casper was the maintainer, but he hasn’t done anything since Spring.
>
>
Yes, Casper was the maintainer, but he hasn’t done anything since Spring.
Lars
On 18.12.13 19:17, "Smith Martin" wrote:
>No, I think the maintainer was Casper Van Donderan.
>
>martin
>
>
>From: development-bounces+martin.smith=digia@qt-project.org
>[
No, I think the maintainer was Casper Van Donderan.
martin
From: development-bounces+martin.smith=digia@qt-project.org
[development-bounces+martin.smith=digia@qt-project.org] on behalf of Laszlo
Papp [lp...@kde.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’d also like to nominate Topi Reiniö as the overall maintainer of our
> documentation. Topi has been doing an excellent job in handling and
> improving our documentation over the last year, and is IMO the best
> candidate we have for th
On Wednesday 18 December 2013 09:04:20 Thiago Macieira wrote:
[snip]
> If only we could get the opinion of a Linux distribution known for being a
> stickler to the free software definitions, to the point of even having their
> own free software guidelines... ;-)
;-)
> I guess that you brought
On Wednesday 18 December 2013 16:56:23 Hausmann Simon wrote:
> Note that this talks about the _use_ of the software,which is something that
> no user of Qt will ever do. (it's not part of any library and iirc not even
> the build process)
Well, I'm about to test if it's part of the build process o
On quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2013 16:46:12, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-12-18, Ziller Eike wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> >> Hi! I would like to now if it's acceptable for the project to have 3rd
> >> party code with the following sta
Note that this talks about the _use_ of the software,which is something that no
user of Qt will ever do. (it's not part of any library and iirc not even the
build process)
Simon
Fra: Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
Sendt: 08:36 onsdag 18. desember 2013
Til: development@qt-project.org
Emne:
On 2013-12-18, Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>
>> Hi! I would like to now if it's acceptable for the project to have 3rd party
>> code with the following statement in 3rd party sources:
>>
>> "The Software shall be used for Goo
On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> Hi! I would like to now if it's acceptable for the project to have 3rd party
> code with the following statement in 3rd party sources:
>
> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil”
Does it come with definitions o
Hi! I would like to now if it's acceptable for the project to have 3rd party
code with the following statement in 3rd party sources:
"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil"
At first I thought it wouldn't, but Sune Vuorela pointed me out that it
*might* be a problem for Digia, so I'm ask
I've discovered that with Qt5 I get a different order of mouse events on
a QWidget than with Qt4 (openSuse 13.1 Linux, X11):
double clicking a widget results in Qt4 in:
mousePressEvent
mouseReleaseEvent
mouseDoubleClickEvent
mousePressEvent
mouseReleaseEvent
but in Qt5 in:
mousePressEvent
mous
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 08:52:59 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2013 11:42:56, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’d like to nominate Paul Tvete as the formal maintainer of the QPA
> > architecture. He’s the original architect behind it anyway, and I don’t
> > think
On 18 December 2013 13:41, Samuel Gaist wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently came across several posts talking about QSettings not working
> as expected on OS X (things not yet reported on the bug tracker).
>
> On OS X 10.9, it seems that Apple has decided to cache the application
> preferences more aggre
Hi,
I recently came across several posts talking about QSettings not working as
expected on OS X (things not yet reported on the bug tracker).
On OS X 10.9, it seems that Apple has decided to cache the application
preferences more aggressively so if one users erases the plist file and
restart
Hi all!
IT updated our routers or switches, and this new firmware might be the cause
for the recent problems we're having. CI can't check anything out from
Gitorious or Gerrit. IT will revert the firmware at 17:00 EET and see if that
solves the problem.
Regards,
-Tony
From: development-bounce
On 18 Dec 2013, at 01:22, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> If it turns out that the failure to destroy is harmless, I'm not sure we
> should do anything. If it's harmless, that means the extra work required to
> free the memory is wasted, since it has no benefit to anyone. Just wasted CPU
> cycles.
+1 from me as well.
Morten
On 17 Dec 2013, at 12:42, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’d like to nominate Paul Tvete as the formal maintainer of the QPA
> architecture. He’s the original architect behind it anyway, and I don’t
> think there are many people out there who know it better :)
>
> Chee
33 matches
Mail list logo
