From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-06-21 21:55:32
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Summary: gdk_pixbuf_format_is_writable() Classification: Bindings Product: gnome-perl Version: unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: Normal Component: Gtk2 AssignedTo: gtk...@li... ReportedBy: us...@zi... QAContact: gtk...@li... GNOME target: --- GNOME version: --- Created an attachment (id=164253) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=164253 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=622324&attachment=164253 patch and test case I wanted to know if a GdkPixbuf file format is writable. Is that already hiding in the Gtk2::Gdk::PixbufFormat hash somewhere? If not then perhaps gdk_pixbuf_format_is_writable() per attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-23 21:56:00
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kaf...@gm... --- Comment #1 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-23 21:55:51 UTC --- Looks like an oversight. But the functions gdk_pixbuf_format_is_scalable and gdk_pixbuf_format_is_disabled are handled by putting a corresponding entry into the format hash. Why not handle gdk_pixbuf_format_is_writable similarly? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-23 22:39:59
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-23 22:39:46 UTC --- I wondered that copying fields to the hash might not be a great idea. A touch wasteful doing it every time an object reaches the perl level, and the bit about is_disabled in principle changing by set_disabled. I don't mind too much either way. A hash field might be more consistent with the other info coming out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 19:55:08
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #3 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 19:54:55 UTC --- I agree that the hash representation is not optimal, but we can't change that now. So I'd prefer an implementation of is_writable as a key in the format hash. Of course you could go really fancy and turn the hash into a tied hash that calls the real accessors under the hood. That would also solve the is_disabled problem. See Cairo/CairoPath.xs for an example of an XS implementation of a tied array. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 22:15:54
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Kevin Ryde <user42> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #164253|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #4 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-24 22:15:41 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=175206) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175206 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=622324&attachment=175206 patch and test case This one as an is_writable field. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:29:22
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-27 14:29:11 UTC --- Looks good, especially the POD addition. Committed. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:29:32
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #175206|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |