Comment # 8
on bug 7471
from Michael Mann
(In reply to comment #7)
> In general I like the approach. A few misc questions:
- any reason to use
> g_array_append_vals instead of just g_array_append_val?
Copy/paste of how user_data array was handled.
- the use of
> gboolean* valid is entirely redundant, I think
I guess you could revalidate when the UAT dialog comes up, but at the momemnt,
validation is only checked on "startup" and when an individual entry is
editted, so I stuck with that paradigm. Not sure how many placed need to
"reverify", which is why I cached it.
- the call to
> UAT_UPDATE(uat) got removed from uat_remove_record_idx, was this
> intentional?
UAT_UPDATE is for user_data only. uat_remove_record_idx is only called from
the GUI, which only deals with raw_data.
My gut feeling re. backporting is no, but if you want to land
> this before 1.10 branches tomorrow that might be a good idea.
Do you think it's good enough to submit the functionality without the GUI
element of highlighting "bad" entries? Good enough just because of the ABI
change and with 1.10 so close to release? I took a few stabs at the GTK, but
wasn't successful, which is why I didn't already commit the patch.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.