 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3FC### [at] free fr>,
Nicolas Calimet <pov### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > Sorry, but the presence of a flag is tested by using
> > state & flag
> > and not
> > state | flag
> > because the latter is always true.
>
> No. The latter is false when both state and flag are false.
> It's true in any other case.
Of what use would this be? And even then, it wouldn't work
properly...such a flag could never be set, but state | flag would be
true if any other flag is set.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> state | flag
>>>because the latter is always true.
>>
>> No. The latter is false when both state and flag are false.
>>It's true in any other case.
>
> Of what use would this be?
None. I was simply noticing that the statement:
"state | flag is always true" is not correct in the general
sense (i.e. as written here).
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3fc3c9ad@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser wrote:
>> And -- if you read code like that:
>> if(state | StateBit) { do sth }
>> What would you think about the author? -- Oh dear...
>
> Compared to code used in some commercial applications, the code in POV-Ray
> is almost perfect. ;-)
>
> Sadly, for any project that is big or complex enough you cannot say much
> about the authors if you just look at the code when it is 15 years old and
> has been treated by dozens of people. Even if it would be a new project,
> at best you can say how good the project management was, but still very
> little about the authors.
>
> Saying something about one particular author requires to make sure only
> one
> author ever touched the code. If you are lucky you find such condition in
> an entry-level programming course, not anywhere else :-(
>
You misunderstood me...
I just wanted to make a point stating that the above code should
be fixed even "if it ain't broken"...
(For the same reson why people fix typos in a book even if you can read
the book _with_ the typos.)
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Please understand that also for a user interface bug the basic rules of
> bug reporting apply, i.e. clear description of the symptoms of the
> problem is required. If you had said you tested that this change fixes
> a lack of response to ctrl-l in POV-Ray everything would have been clear.
>
I completely understand you.
Just to give you the background:
The bug was _not_ discovered by observing misbehaviour. I just had
a casual look at unix.cpp while writing my PRT patch and that
particular line just jumped on me. It was so evident to me that this
was a bug because from doing XLib programming for years,
XEvent.state and ControlMask were familiar to me and so I thought
any deeper explanation would just bore the maintainer...
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
> Anyway, thanx for fiding this. The Xwindows code would
> actually need more extensive review, so if you find any other
> problem which is not related to Xwindows-specific command-line
> options (this part of the code is quite buggy; currently fixed),
> you're welcome to report !
>
Okay, that's no problem -- If I find a bug and have a fix, I always
report it. In case I don't have a fix, I report only severe bugs.
It would, however, be helpful if you gave me the current development
version of POVRay.
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It would, however, be helpful if you gave me the current development
> version of POVRay.
Apart the obvious bugfixes in XWIN_init_povray() that I mentioned
before, the current Xwindows-specific code is still the same as in 3.50c,
so reviewing the latter would be for sure of a great help.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
