This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Tcl/Tk Interface Unification (was Re: New Xconq Windows Executable)
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Hans Ronne <hronne at telia dot com>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com, Juergen Ruehle <j dot ruehle at bmiag dot de>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Tcl/Tk Interface Unification (was Re: New Xconq Windows Executable)
Hi Hans, Juergen,
Juergen, I applied your patch and everything seemed fine (as
expected). I haven't committed the changes yet because I am
experimenting with building a completely statically-linked Xconq
app. I built the Sourceforge distro of Tcl/Tk under Windows (had
to use the MinGW compiler though), and am linking against that.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Hans Ronne wrote:
> The advantage of these rearrangements are two-fold. First, it will be
> easier keep track of what files belong to what interfaces. Second, one
> would no longer need hacks supporting several different interfaces within
> the same source file, as is now the case for xconq.c. The only disadvantage
> is the slight code duplication. However, I think we can live with this. The
> entire xconq.c is only 241 lines including the comments.
I am not particularly keen on the idea of maintaining two separate
sources that are partially duplicate. Perhaps we can could do
something like:
#include "x11/xconq-common.c"
or
#include "platform/unix/xconq-common.c"
in both tkunix.c and sdlunix.c ...? Even though we would possibly
be including function definitions in multiple places, we would not
run into link-time troubles, because only one of the interfaces is
being built.
Thanks,
Eric