On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:40:14PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> > I'm willing to apply your unification patches to dmenu and dwm, but can you
> > make a patch for dwm/dmenu if it breaks it?
>
> Heyho Hiltjo,
>
> sorry, I don't quite get what you are referring to. If a regression with my
> patch series turns up, of course I will fix it assuming that is what you meant.
>
Nevermind, I did not see your dwm, dmenu and sent patches, very nice work! I'll
test those later :)
> > > -typedef struct {
> > > - Clr *fg;
> > > - Clr *bg;
> > > - Clr *border;
> > > -} ClrScheme;
> > > +enum { ColFg, ColBg, ColCount }; /* Scm index */
> > > +typedef XftColor *Scm;
> >
> > I don't like the typedef to a pointer here.
>
> I wanted to clean up the unneeded nesting, but also keep the type naming scheme
> (upper case letter - two lower case letters) consistent instead of just using
> `XftColor *` in the interface. I am unsure about what the level of abstraction
> should be in this non-library interface to the drw compilation unit. Could you
> provide more insight in the reasoning behind your preference?
I meant using:
typedef XftColor Scm
and *Scm.
instead of
typedef XftColor *Scm
not sure tbh, maybe it's fine as it is now.
--
Kind regards,
Hiltjo
Received on Mon May 23 2016 - 20:05:19 CEST