On Sunday 07 January 2007 13:16, Robert Shearman wrote:
> ---
> tools/make_makefiles |1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Since the "*~" files are not generated by the build process this is perhaps
not the right place to do it.
Rather each developer should ignore such
On Monday 25 December 2006 00:23, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> >>> In any case having them stubbed in better than nothing. I don't think
> >>
> >> Not really. As I said before, if a program uses these functions, then
> >>
On Sunday 24 December 2006 17:53, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 December 2006 05:37, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> >> Is there are any reason why do you need this functions at all? According
> >> to ddk they are part of "Installable
On Sunday 24 December 2006 15:17, Roderick Colenbrander wrote:
> I have played a bit with Mesa and it indeed works fine without the GLX
> extension (just a software renderer ofcourse). I know what error you are
> seeing for instance the nvidia drivers output it when GLX isn't present. It
> really d
On Sunday 24 December 2006 10:55, Chris Robinson wrote:
> On Sunday 24 December 2006 01:12, Roderick Colenbrander wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not sure if checking for the GLX extension is such a good idea as it
> > is possible to use OpenGL without having the GLX extension. For instance
> > when pla
On Sunday 24 December 2006 10:12, Roderick Colenbrander wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if checking for the GLX extension is such a good idea as it is
> possible to use OpenGL without having the GLX extension. For instance when
> plain Mesa is used.
OK. The thing is that if I have the OpenGL librari
On Sunday 24 December 2006 05:37, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Is there are any reason why do you need this functions at all? According
> to ddk they are part of "Installable File System Drivers". This is a
> kernel level thing only and no user app should use these routines.
Should, perhaps. Does, we
> > Protecting trivially collectable collections of fact would serve
> > no purpose that I can see...
>
> Here, if the collection as a whole requires trivial effort to
> collect, it's
> not protected. It's the aggregate effort that counts. The
> problem with the MS
> tables is that from what h
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:53, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
>
> > The significant effort requirement is for EACH fact seen by ITSELF.
>
> This is certainly not the case in Australia, NZ and the UK.
So you can have protection on collections of truely trivial facts?
I severly doub
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:07, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > [correct summary of the law deleted]
>
> > As far as Wine is concerned though I can't think of
> > any Windows API that:
> > 1. Returns pure facts (not having any unique expression)
> > 2.
> On October 3, 2003 09:07 am, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > As far as Wine is concerned though I can't think of
> > any Windows API that:
> > 1. Returns pure facts (not having any unique expression)
> > 2. Would fulfill the requirement of needed a significant
> &g
> Say I have a piece of code, x (which is copyright) which
> always returns the
> same output for a given input (e.g. a function that implements a math
> formula or a function that retrieves some value from an
> internal data table
> stored in the dll or whatever)
> Lets then say that I havent
12 matches
Mail list logo
