Thanks for this awesome work!
so some comments on the proposed branch:
+ if ((result = process_easter (ref search_string, ref model)) != 0)
I would just make process_easter returns true or false and don't care about the result (we don't really need to differentiate them)
----------------
549 + string uri;
550 + Icon icon;
551 + uri = "unity-calc";
552 + string result_string = _(format_result_output (search_string, result));
-> can you pease fix the ident?
Btw, you have this code twice, can you try a while loop with an arg being true as long as the result is invalid and we can still tweak the search by adding ')' and such?
Hey toineo,
Thanks for this awesome work!
so some comments on the proposed branch:
+ if ((result = process_easter (ref search_string, ref model)) != 0)
I would just make process_easter returns true or false and don't care about the result (we don't really need to differentiate them)
----------------
549 + string uri; result_ output (search_string, result));
550 + Icon icon;
551 + uri = "unity-calc";
552 + string result_string = _(format_
-> can you pease fix the ident?
575 + string uri; result_ output (search_string, result));
576 + Icon icon;
577 + uri = "unity-calc";
578 + string result_string = _(format_
-> same remark
Btw, you have this code twice, can you try a while loop with an arg being true as long as the result is invalid and we can still tweak the search by adding ')' and such?
------- ------- ------- -
63 + private Gee.HashMap< string, DelegateWrapper 1> TwoLettersFct; string, DelegateWrapper 1> ThreeLettersFct; string, DelegateWrapper 1> FourLettersFct; string, DelegateWrapper 1> FiveLettersFct;
64 + private Gee.HashMap<
65 + private Gee.HashMap<
66 + private Gee.HashMap<
As we discussed, I would prefer an double HashMap with 2,3,4,5 has a primary index to select the right subhashmap reference
------- ------- ------- ---
256 + /* FIXME : at this time, something like tan7 is evaluated
257 + * as tan(7). Do we accept this behavior ? */
-> it's fine for now ;)
Awesome work! can you please look at those remarks and see how to fix them? The rest looks good :-)
Thanks again for working on that!