[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble..
From: |
David Turner |
Subject: |
Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.. |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:29:53 +0100 |
Hi Stefan,
>
> or you use 'freetype2' on systems that allow it. After all,
> to write programs that are portable among those with the 8.3 restrictions
> and the rest, you'll have a whole bunch of other portability issues to care
> of.
>
I really don't see what other portability issues you're referring to. Could
you give us a few examples of this "whole bunch" ?
> A simple
>
> #ifdef _dos_ // whatever that is...
> #include <freetype/freetype.h>
> #elif defined(__linux__) || ...
> #include <freetype2/freetype.h>
> #endif
>
> will not be a problem. Anyway, among the two options you mention, the first
> is clearly the better, as long as I can write my include statement:
>
My opinion is that your proposal _will_ be a big problem, especially in
the long term. Do you really think that platform-specific #ifdefs are
a good thing when using a portable library ?
What's striking in your proposal is that you didn't complete
the #elif defined(__linux__) ... line.
How would you determine the correct #if / #elif ?
Who would be in charge of maintaining this monstruosity ?
I don't think we need to go that route, really.. but maybe you could
enlighten us with a new portable proposal ??
> #include <freetype.h>
>
> and not
>
> #include <freetype2/freetype/freetype.h>
>
> all is fine. Compile time flags are trivially adjustable.
>
And what about:
#include <freetype/freetype.h>
compile time flags trivially adjustable (either manually or through
freetype-config).
and it buys you portability.. !!
Stefan, please understand that unless you provide us with a portable
proposal that would allow the source code to compile on _any_ platform
with a pseudo ANSI compiler, there's no way we're going to allow
special installation cases as the one you're asking for..
Let's say that if nothing new _and_ working hasn't been proposed,
we revert the source code to the "old" scheme on Friday and release
2.0.2
In the meantime, I'll change the content of <ft2build.h> to use
direct macro definitions only.. that should make the code compilable
on any system..
Regards,
- David
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., (continued)
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., David Turner, 2000/12/13
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Bob Friesenhahn, 2000/12/13
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., David Turner, 2000/12/13
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Laurence Withers, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Antoine Leca, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Roozbeh Pournader, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Antoine Leca, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Laurence Withers, 2000/12/15
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Stefan Seefeld, 2000/12/12
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble..,
David Turner <=
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., David Turner, 2000/12/13
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Pavel Kankovsky, 2000/12/15
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/12/15
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Stefan Seefeld, 2000/12/13
- Re: [Freetype] Re: Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/12/12
- Re: [Freetype] Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Antoine Leca, 2000/12/14
- Re: [Freetype] Summary of ANSI preprocessor trouble.., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/12/14
Re: [Freetype] compiling with 2.0.1 fails (new scheme), crusius, 2000/12/12