Re: [Freetype]2.0 release install problems on Unix systems

[crusius]

Hi,
>
>What we want to avoid is that programs need different include
>prefixes depending on the platform. I mean, do you really want
>to code like this to make portable code ?:
>
>#if UNIX
>#include <freetype2/freetype.h>
>#else
>#include <freetype/freetype.h>
>#endif
>
>Not a good thing in my book, really !!
>
>So keeping the same prefix on all platforms is important
>for application portability..

oh yes, i agree. the point is that i sincerely see very few
applications intended to run in both 8+3 systems and unix that won't
have literally tons of constructions like that one.  i don't like it,
but that's how it is, and one of the reasons why 8+3 systems are
vanishing from the face of the earth.  using `freetype2' for unix
systems then makes things uniform (i know of *no* other package that
has a "dot" on the include path, that's very weird) and is not a big
deal for people wanting to write portable code between 8+3 and the
rest of the world.  i think its a good compromise... it benefits most
of the people while not really doing any harm to the rest.

cheers,

--
Cesar Augusto Rorato Crusius    __o      __o      __o      __o      __o    
Stanford University           _`\<,    _`\<,    _`\<,    _`\<,    _`\<,    
e-mail:address@hidden    (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)   
www.stanford.edu/~crusius
                                       o      _     _         _
   __o      __o      __o      __o     /\_   _ \\o  (_)\__/o  (_)
 _`\<,    _`\<,    _`\<,    _`\<,    _>(_) (_)/<_    \_| \   _|/' \/
(_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)/(_)  (_)        (_)   (_)    (_)'  _\o_

He who sacrifices functionality for ease of use
Loses both and deserves neither