jamey at minilop.net
Tue Apr 18 11:17:15 PDT 2006
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:04:16PM -0700, Barton C Massey wrote:
> Thanks! I've copied your text into the bug.
> My inclination is the same as yours; kill
> XCBGetRequestRead() and add XCBPollForReply().
> 1) IMHO you needn't make it "type-safe"; it's a deprecated
> magic interface.
It isn't deprecated, but it is magic. I'll buy that.
> 2) So you have the usual litany of bad multiple-return-value
> and disjoint union workarounds for C. Pick one that
> looks like the others we're using in XCB; they all are
> 3) Yeah, you probably want to do the in-out thing with the
> reply record the same as you are with the event record.
int XCBPollForReply(XCBConnection *c, unsigned int
request, void **reply, XCBGenericError **error);
Returns zero if XCBWaitForReply would have blocked on
the same c and request arguments. Otherwise, returns
non-zero and fills in reply with the value that
XCBWaitForReply would have returned, and manipulates
error the same way that XCBWaitForReply would have.
I guess I'll place this in the extension API (xcbext.h), even
though no extension will use it (I think), since it goes with
XCBWaitForReply which is in that API.
> My 2 cents---probably wrong. We need to get this resolved
> quickly, though.
Yeah, I'll buy that too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20060418/7c95d468/attachment.pgp
More information about the Xcb