On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 05:31:33PM +0100, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2015 3:20 pm, "Jonas Ådahl" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:56:14PM +0100, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> > > No.
> > > If we want Wayland to be successful and widely used it has to be well
> > > documented (which i
On 29 Dec 2015 3:20 pm, "Jonas Ådahl" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:56:14PM +0100, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> > No.
> > If we want Wayland to be successful and widely used it has to be well
> > documented (which it still is far from). Turning off warnings about
> > undocumented fields doesn
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:15:38AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 02:10, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > + /* The server will not actually destroy the client until it receives
> > +* input, so send something to trigger the client destruction. */
> > +
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:07:55AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 02:10, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > @@ -1485,27 +1500,28 @@ WL_EXPORT int
> > wl_display_dispatch_queue(struct wl_display *display,
> > struct wl_event_queue *queue)
> > {
>
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:56:14PM +0100, Nils Chr. Brause wrote:
> No.
> If we want Wayland to be successful and widely used it has to be well
> documented (which it still is far from). Turning off warnings about
> undocumented fields doesn't exactly help the documentation effort but
> rather impe
No.
If we want Wayland to be successful and widely used it has to be well
documented (which it still is far from). Turning off warnings about
undocumented fields doesn't exactly help the documentation effort but
rather impedes it.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> There are l
Hi Jonas,
On 29 December 2015 at 02:10, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> + /* The server will not actually destroy the client until it receives
> +* input, so send something to trigger the client destruction. */
> + callback = wl_display_sync(client->wl_display);
> + wl_callback_des
Hi Jonas,
On 29 December 2015 at 02:10, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> @@ -1485,27 +1500,28 @@ WL_EXPORT int
> wl_display_dispatch_queue(struct wl_display *display,
> struct wl_event_queue *queue)
> {
> - struct pollfd pfd[2];
> int ret;
>
> if (wl_display_
Hi Jonas,
On 29 December 2015 at 02:10, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> A statement was added at the same indentation level as the true branch
> of the if statement, but since there were no brackets, it would be
> executed independently of the result of the if condition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl
For
