On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:27:35 -0400
"Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
> It seems people got a bit caught up on the words "undefined behavior" here,
> especially as the very similar "undefined surface contents" appears in
> wl_surface.destroy / wl_surface.release. L
It seems people got a bit caught up on the words "undefined behavior" here,
especially as the very similar "undefined surface contents" appears in
wl_surface.destroy / wl_surface.release. Let's try this again, with a
different word.
Any behavior that is not explicitly de
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:11:59 -0700
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:31:27 -0700
> > Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >
> > > I think the better thing to do would be to clarify the protocol to say
> > how
> > > it should be u
recently, Pekka had a lot of concerns of the
> kind
> > > "what happens when the client makes an unexpected or illegal request.
> > > Should it be an error?"
> > >
> >
> > Yes and no. More on that in a line or two.
> >
> >
> > >
quest.
> > Should it be an error?"
> >
>
> Yes and no. More on that in a line or two.
>
>
> > I have an answer for this: Any behavior not defined is undefined behavior.
> > If it's not explicitly mentioned in the protocol, it's undefined behavi
or two.
> I have an answer for this: Any behavior not defined is undefined behavior.
> If it's not explicitly mentioned in the protocol, it's undefined behavior.
>
> Undefined behavior means that anything can happen. The compositor can send
> you a fatal error. It can
In the xdg-shell thread recently, Pekka had a lot of concerns of the kind
"what happens when the client makes an unexpected or illegal request.
Should it be an error?"
I have an answer for this: Any behavior not defined is undefined behavior.
If it's not explicitly mentioned in the
