xffm questions

edscott wilson garcia edscott at imp.mx
Thu Mar 20 03:34:17 CET 2003

El mié, 19-03-2003 a las 17:08, Olivier Fourdan escribió:
> Hi Edscott,
> I fixed an annoying bug with "Applications" folder in xffm that was not
> considering apps with an absolute path. There are possibly similar bugs
> elsewhere, I did not check that.
> That brings me to a couple of question :
> 1) Why do you use your own at_path() function when glib provides
> g_find_program_in_path () which is portable ? 
> http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/glib/glib-Miscellaneous-Utility-Functions.html#g-find-program-in-path
> 2) More generally, why not using what glib provides ?

Ignorance, basically 8-). Now that I know better I'll get rid of
"at_path". It won't be hard to replace all "at_path()" for 

> 3) You mix C types with glib functions (typically you use "char *"
> instead of "gchar *" which would be better IMO, and, yes, I know gchar
> is really char)

I guess that's out of habit. Now that the point has come up I'll clean 
that code as well. I'm going off on a long weekend tommorrow and I'll be
doing a lot of small fixes that are pending. I won't be enabling the smb
file transfers by dnd & c+p until next week. So an optimistic timetable
for rc1 could be for the end of the month.

> 4) You have some defines redefined multiple times (typically "D"), gcc
> -Wall complains about that.

That's for this debugging period. As soon as it's rc1 time, I'll remove
the line in constants.h and the warnings about "D" should go away. Any
other macro that is defined multiple times would be an error to check.

> 4) you need to remove C++ comments. And, yes, I know C99 allows that.

Yes. I use both types of comments to distinguish important (C style)
comments from unimportant (C++ style comments). The whole C++ style
comment is targeted for removal (or converted to C if it is important
after all) once the code is more or less stable (hopefully at rc1). But
its good to remind me, since I sometimes forget. ;-)

> 5) the new xfdiff icon in the toolbar is horrible :)

It is kind of ugly, isn't it? I picked it up from digital-unix 4.0 CDE
but I think I can fix it by removing the cyan and putting in a
transparent background. The problem with the old xfdiff icon is that it
looks too much like the terminal icon and I sometimes get confused.



> Cheers,
> -- 
> Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org>
> http://www.xfce.org
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list