This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: side_controls_unit vs. tk interface
- To: Jim Kingdon <kingdon at panix dot com>
- Subject: Re: side_controls_unit vs. tk interface
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:42:09 -0700
- CC: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200010060716.DAA01265@panix2.panix.com>
- Reply-To: shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com
Jim Kingdon wrote:
>
> Here's the latest in the saga which started with
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/2000/msg00105.html - which is
> basically trying to clean up the side_sees_unit vs. side_controls_unit
> in tkcmd.c. The enclosed code is similar in spirit to existing
> side_controls_unit calls in tkcmd.c; it just goes more places.
The theory is good, but is there some reason the test can't go into
REQUIRE_UNIT? The macro is local to this file, and intended to
reduce this kind of replication, so it seems like the perfect home.
Stan