GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 668857
fix couple of typos in comments
Last modified: 2012-01-28 06:53:36 UTC
fix couple of typos in, glib/gbase64.c glib/gbookmarkfile.c glib/gchecksum.c glib/gdataset.c glib/gdate.c glib/ggettext.c glib/grand.c glib/gsequence.c glib/gslice.c glib/gtester.c glib/gthread-posix.c glib/gvariant-core.c
Created attachment 206284 [details] [review] fix couple of typos in comments
Review of attachment 206284 [details] [review]: looks generally good to me. ::: glib/gvariant-core.c @@ +685,3 @@ * that if the value was just created (and has only its floating * reference) then the container will assume sole ownership of the value + * at that point and the caller will not need to dereference it. This "unreference" is correct, in this case, though poor English. "release its reference to it" could be used, in this case. @@ +830,3 @@ * corrupted serialised container then %NULL may be returned. In this * case, the proper thing to do is typically to use the appropriate + * number of null bytes in place of @value. If @value is not fixed-sized no, 'nul' is correct. could have used NUL as well.
Created attachment 206310 [details] [review] fix couple of typos in comments reverted "null" to "NUL" as suggested.
Review of attachment 206310 [details] [review]: everything looks good except for the changes to GVariant (see comments) ::: glib/gvariant-core.c @@ +685,3 @@ * that if the value was just created (and has only its floating * reference) then the container will assume sole ownership of the value + * at that point and the caller will not need to dereference it. This dereference is not the correct term to use here. @@ +830,3 @@ * corrupted serialised container then %NULL may be returned. In this * case, the proper thing to do is typically to use the appropriate + * number of NUL bytes in place of @value. If @value is not fixed-sized i prefer 'nul' for this case and 'NULL' for pointers, so this is best left alone as well.
I've pushed the patch, minus the changes to GVariant. Thanks!