[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion regarding header files...
From: |
Ari Johnson |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestion regarding header files... |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Nov 2002 21:50:16 -0600 (CST) |
I like that solution.
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
>
> Currently, the autoconf stuff defines two symbols:
> COMMON_XML_PARSING (A) and HAVE_LIBXML (B). Only B is used for the
> #ifdefs. Using both A and B we could do things like this:
>
> #if defined(A) && defined(B)
> // libxml based stuff as it is currently defined.
> #if defined(A) && !defined(B)
> // at present, #error "libxml not installed"
> // in the future, check another HAVE_... alternative xml lib.
> #if !defined(A)
> // put in xml.cpp something like #warning "XML support is not
> // being compiled, are you sure?". And put in xml.h #error
> // "XML support not available"
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:34:00AM -0500, David Sugar wrote:
> >
> > I find usually when I choose not to build Common C++ with "XML support"
> > (there is a configure option to do this implicitly), I also only link with
> > ccgnu rather than with ccext, so, in a sense it is a "build requirement"
> > to have XML support, but certainly not a runtime requirement if one builds
> > small footprint applications that only link with ccgnu. It would also be
> > interesting if we could alternately use other xml parsers into the Common
> > C++ XML classes. If no XML support is present at build time, however,
> > should that be an error or a warning? I think it should be at least a
> > warning, which it isn't now.
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I see. your solution seems much better. We will also have to
> > > put the '#include <xml.h>' in common.h inside an #ifdef. And we should
> > > also apply the #error idea to ftp.h and piostream, which are optional
> > > too.
> > >
> > > If there is no objection, this will be done within a few days.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0600, Ari Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you compiled without XML support, but you try to include cc++/xml.h,
> > > > you should be informed that you're trying to use a part of the library
> > > > that you didn't install. I think that xml.h is a good place to put
> > > > this,
> > > > and also that it should be an #error (just like trying to start a car
> > > > without an engine is an error and not something that can be ignored as a
> > > > warning).
> > > > -- Ari Johnson
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>
- Suggestion regarding header files..., Ari Johnson, 2002/11/01
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., Federico Montesino Pouzols, 2002/11/01
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., Ari Johnson, 2002/11/01
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., Federico Montesino Pouzols, 2002/11/02
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., David Sugar, 2002/11/02
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., Federico Montesino Pouzols, 2002/11/02
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files...,
Ari Johnson <=
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., Federico Montesino Pouzols, 2002/11/13
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., David Sugar, 2002/11/13
- Re: Suggestion regarding header files..., David Sugar, 2002/11/02