[PATCH] Bug in Xextproto

[Simon Thum]

Bill Crawford wrote:
> On Saturday 28 March 2009 17:42:54 Simon Thum wrote:
>> Rémi Cardona wrote:
> ...
>>> Can't we work something out with Qt folks?
>> Good idea, but I think the above sounds like adopting a
>> what-breaks-gets-fixed policy is the most realistic option. Adam
>> probably has to say something enlightening.
> 
> Weeeeell ... ISTR X existed before Qt ;o) so probably it should be they who 
> don't decide to conflict. But I'm just one man, one opinion ...
I believe the problem is there was never a strict policy what header is 
defining what symbols, including by proxy. That changed, breakage.

I like the idea behind CARDn & friends, but (u)intN_t is C99, and Xmd.h 
doesn't seem to be so great either.

Let's hope X is C99 by the time memory models are overhauled again. Or 
whatever is the master plan here.