<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Blog of Tim Janik</title>
	<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj</link>
	<description>Technical ramblings by Tim Janik</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on 16.07.2008 GUADEC 2008 Wrapup by Kalle Vahlman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-194</link>
		<dc:creator>Kalle Vahlman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-194</guid>
		<description>I think 2.9x series would be a good move, provided that someone *guarantees* that it will mean new features for 3.0.

If for nothing else, it might ease the flood of comments from people who seem to be afraid of the "big" 3.0 not leaving the cosmos in an unstable state with new innovative features...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think 2.9x series would be a good move, provided that someone *guarantees* that it will mean new features for 3.0.</p>
<p>If for nothing else, it might ease the flood of comments from people who seem to be afraid of the &#8220;big&#8221; 3.0 not leaving the cosmos in an unstable state with new innovative features&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 16.07.2008 GUADEC 2008 Wrapup by Ömer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>Ömer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-193</guid>
		<description>:) it is not pizza its called pide in Turkish.
[img]http://www.sampi.com.tr/upload/pide/5_bg.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.sampi.com.tr/upload/pide/41_bg.jpg[/img]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>:) it is not pizza its called pide in Turkish.<br />
[img]http://www.sampi.com.tr/upload/pide/5_bg.jpg[/img]<br />
[img]http://www.sampi.com.tr/upload/pide/41_bg.jpg[/img]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 16.07.2008 GUADEC 2008 Wrapup by Alan Horkan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Horkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-192</guid>
		<description>"Federico presented his ideas for timeline tabs"

the tabs joke continues?  

seriously though the journal provided by Sugar/OLPC is a great idea and something along those lines could be really great for Gnome.  thing is once you have your document based metaphor a journal of the documents you were working on recently works really really well, and I've rambled before how interesting it could be to have not just a few recent documents but a much more detailed and involved document history or journal or timeline as others have called it.  

great news.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Federico presented his ideas for timeline tabs&#8221;</p>
<p>the tabs joke continues?  </p>
<p>seriously though the journal provided by Sugar/OLPC is a great idea and something along those lines could be really great for Gnome.  thing is once you have your document based metaphor a journal of the documents you were working on recently works really really well, and I&#8217;ve rambled before how interesting it could be to have not just a few recent documents but a much more detailed and involved document history or journal or timeline as others have called it.  </p>
<p>great news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 16.07.2008 GUADEC 2008 Wrapup by Richard Hult</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-191</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Hult</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-191</guid>
		<description>Yes, we are looking into providing automated tools that can help in that respect. Many of the changes for moving from direct struct accesses to using function accessors should be possible to do automatically. Hopefully there will be some more concrete news about this soonish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, we are looking into providing automated tools that can help in that respect. Many of the changes for moving from direct struct accesses to using function accessors should be possible to do automatically. Hopefully there will be some more concrete news about this soonish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 16.07.2008 GUADEC 2008 Wrapup by Stu</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:42:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/07/16/16072008-guadec-2008-wrapup/#comment-190</guid>
		<description>For new C APIs could conversion scripts be written, like python will be doing with 2to3 to convert from 2.5 to 3.0 ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For new C APIs could conversion scripts be written, like python will be doing with 2to3 to convert from 2.5 to 3.0 ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 23.06.2008 Writing Unit Tests with GLib by shark_yang</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-189</link>
		<dc:creator>shark_yang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-189</guid>
		<description>hi Tim:

I use glib's testunit in visual studio 2002.But when compling the code, i find warnings. 

The code:
...
g_assert_cmpint(3, ==, 2);
...

The warnings:
warning C4244: conversion from '__int64' to 'long double', possible loss of data

In glib's source code(gtestutils.h):
#define g_assert_cmpint(n1, cmp, n2) \
		do { gint64 __n1 = (n1), __n2 = (n2); \
                if (__n1 cmp __n2) ; else \
                _assertion_message_cmpnum (G_LOG_DOMAIN, __FILE__, __LINE__, G_STRFUNC, \
                #n1 " " #cmp " " #n2, __n1, #cmp, __n2, 'i'); } while (0)
 

May be correct:
#define g_assert_cmpint(n1, cmp, n2) \
		do { gint64 __n1 = (n1), __n2 = (n2); \
                if (__n1 cmp __n2) ; else \
                _assertion_message_cmpnum (G_LOG_DOMAIN, __FILE__, __LINE__, G_STRFUNC, \
                #n1 " " #cmp " " #n2, (long double)__n1, #cmp, (long double)__n2, 'i'); } while (0)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi Tim:</p>
<p>I use glib&#8217;s testunit in visual studio 2002.But when compling the code, i find warnings. </p>
<p>The code:<br />
&#8230;<br />
g_assert_cmpint(3, ==, 2);<br />
&#8230;</p>
<p>The warnings:<br />
warning C4244: conversion from &#8216;__int64&#8242; to &#8216;long double&#8217;, possible loss of data</p>
<p>In glib&#8217;s source code(gtestutils.h):<br />
#define g_assert_cmpint(n1, cmp, n2) \<br />
		do { gint64 __n1 = (n1), __n2 = (n2); \<br />
                if (__n1 cmp __n2) ; else \<br />
                _assertion_message_cmpnum (G_LOG_DOMAIN, __FILE__, __LINE__, G_STRFUNC, \<br />
                #n1 &#8221; &#8221; #cmp &#8221; &#8221; #n2, __n1, #cmp, __n2, &#8216;i&#8217;); } while (0)</p>
<p>May be correct:<br />
#define g_assert_cmpint(n1, cmp, n2) \<br />
		do { gint64 __n1 = (n1), __n2 = (n2); \<br />
                if (__n1 cmp __n2) ; else \<br />
                _assertion_message_cmpnum (G_LOG_DOMAIN, __FILE__, __LINE__, G_STRFUNC, \<br />
                #n1 &#8221; &#8221; #cmp &#8221; &#8221; #n2, (long double)__n1, #cmp, (long double)__n2, &#8216;i&#8217;); } while (0)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 23.06.2008 Writing Unit Tests with GLib by shark_yang</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-187</link>
		<dc:creator>shark_yang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-187</guid>
		<description>Tim Janik:

I use glib's main event loop and iochannel, but why glib's main event loop and iochannel don't support epoll/kqueue/(/dev/poll)?

The poll/select func's efficiency is very poor.

The libevent(http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/) use epoll/kqueue. Why glib not?

thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim Janik:</p>
<p>I use glib&#8217;s main event loop and iochannel, but why glib&#8217;s main event loop and iochannel don&#8217;t support epoll/kqueue/(/dev/poll)?</p>
<p>The poll/select func&#8217;s efficiency is very poor.</p>
<p>The libevent(http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/) use epoll/kqueue. Why glib not?</p>
<p>thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 23.06.2008 Writing Unit Tests with GLib by Tim Janik</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-186</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Janik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-186</guid>
		<description>liberforce, feel free to start a unit test tutorial page on live.gnome.org or to submit it as a patch against GLib for inclusion in library.gnome.org. The main tutorial contents are here:
  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00181.html
And this is also related:
  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00286.html
We appreciate various sorts of contributions, of course also documentation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>liberforce, feel free to start a unit test tutorial page on live.gnome.org or to submit it as a patch against GLib for inclusion in library.gnome.org. The main tutorial contents are here:<br />
  <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00181.html" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00181.html</a><br />
And this is also related:<br />
  <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00286.html" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-December/msg00286.html</a><br />
We appreciate various sorts of contributions, of course also documentation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 23.06.2008 Writing Unit Tests with GLib by liberforce</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-185</link>
		<dc:creator>liberforce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:21:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-185</guid>
		<description>Wouldn't it be better if this blog post was converted into a live.gnome.org tutorial ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it be better if this blog post was converted into a live.gnome.org tutorial ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 23.06.2008 Writing Unit Tests with GLib by Tim Janik</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-184</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Janik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.gnome.org/timj/2008/06/24/23062008-writing-unit-tests-with-glib/#comment-184</guid>
		<description>shark_yang, G_STMT_START/G_STMT_END is essentially a lengthier way to write do{...}while(0).
As for CUnit, that has been considered but didn't meet the requirements:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-November/msg00000.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00039.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>shark_yang, G_STMT_START/G_STMT_END is essentially a lengthier way to write do{&#8230;}while(0).<br />
As for CUnit, that has been considered but didn&#8217;t meet the requirements:<br />
<a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-November/msg00000.html" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-November/msg00000.html</a><br />
<a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00039.html" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00039.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
