<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<meta name="generator" content="pandoc" />
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
div.line-block{white-space: pre-line;}
div.column{display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 50%;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello <code>vlc-devel</code>,</p>
<p>I’d like to take the opportunity to apologize for yet another idiotic error from my part. For those rendering the <code>text/plain</code> part of emails, the one which this message is a reply to looks fine, however; those being fancy and viewing <code>text/html</code> got a little thing extra on the side.</p>
<p>The above sounds like I am confessing to infecting you with the flu or whatever, which I am not; but <em>“[WARNING] This document format requires a nonempty”</em> was <strong>not</strong> intended to be part of the previous email.</p>
<p>Someone please come to Stockholm and hit me over the head. I blame the cold, and lack of coffee.</p>
<p>Best Regards, Someone Who Seemingly Cannot Stop Fing Up His Setup</p>
<p>On 2017-11-10 20:10, Filip Roséen wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> Hi Romain,
On 2017-11-10 19:08, Romain Vimont wrote:</code></pre>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> Le vendredi 10 novembre 2017 à 17:04 +0100, Filip Roséen a écrit :</code></pre>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> I agree with what you write (in terms of behavior), but the relevant
piece of implementation should go through a more robust clean-up than
what you propose</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Do you suggest to completely remove the qtu() macro?</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> No, I was referring to the *bookmark-keeping* when I mentioned *"more
robust clean-up"*, and not only in `modules/gui/qt`
The `qtu` macro might not be the safest of them all, but given that
the only case I can find where it is being used in the wrong way (I
just gave a quick skim over every usage) is the issue you brought up,
I do not think it is of any major importance to remove it right now.
Would I rest a little easier knowing that `qtu` was replaced by a
safer alternative? Surely. However, do I also feel that it should be
on the priority list at the current time? No.
Best Regards,\
Filip</code></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>