Re: -DSTRICT_OPENSTEP still not working.

[Pascal Bourguignon]

> >>> It   still  is  not   possible  to   compile  GNUstep   programs  with
> >>> -DSTRICT_OPENSTEP=1.
> > Now, the problem  is in AppKit, about NSWindowDepth  which is declared
> > in  GSMethodTable.h, which  is included  in  NSGraphicsContext.h (line
> > 88), but only when not STRICT_OPENSTEP. The whole NSGraphicsContext is
> > marked not STRICT_OPENSTEP...
> 
> Well, I've moved the declaration of NSWindowDepth ... which should help
> you.

Thank you.

 
> Why are you using STRICT_OPENSTEP rather than STRICT_MACOS_X ?
> AFAIK, there are very few OPENSTEP systems out there (and probably *no*
> systems that actually conform strictly to the OpenStep standard) - so

I have a NeXTstation with OPENSTEP 4.2, yet no MacOSX.  I'm sorry that
IBM  and Sun lost  interest in  NeXTSTEP and  OpenStep, but  still the
OpenStep standard exists and  anybody interested could develop another
commercial implementation.  (As a free  implementation there's already
GNUstep).

At any time, Apple Computer Inc  could be bought by any other company,
which could decide to drop, or to upgrade MacOSX with the correponding
time lapse.

I don't want to be locked anymore into someone else's API. Therefore I
plan to  keep my applications STRICT_OPENSTEP.  I  should also compile
to a couple of other systems to avoid Linuxisms...


> I occasionally think we should remove the STRICT_OPENSTEP stuff and stick
> to the MacOS-X compatibility only.

Please, don't. 


Note  also that  STRICT_OPENSTEP is  a legal  line of  defense, should
Apple  try   to  repress   GNUstep.   There's  this   OpenStep  public
specification!  At least that, they can't prevent us to implement.


> If you want this stuff improved, please submit patches ... I don't think
> any of the developers really have time to diagnose/fix porting problems
> of a tiny minority of users ... we depend on users to supply portability
> fixes for most operating systems, and this stuff is really close to being
> in the same category.

You're right.   I should  allocate more time  and try to  provide more
patches.  I want to, too.


> Generally speaking, portability patches get applied -
> 1. if they look reasonable, and
> 2. if they don't break the 'main' platforms


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__              (o_ Software patents are endangering
()  ASCII ribbon against html email //\ the computer industry all around
/\  and Microsoft attachments.      V_/ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
1962:DO20I=1.100  2001:my($f)=`fortune`;  http://petition.eurolinux.org/

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d? s++:++(+++)>++ a C+++  UB+++L++++$S+X++++>$ P- L+++ E++ W++
N++ o-- K- w------ O- M++$ V PS+E++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5? X+ R !tv b++(+)
DI+++ D++ G++ e+++ h+(++) r? y---? UF++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------