Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
> Matthias Melcher wrote:
>> On 11.09.2009, at 12:05, MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
>>
>>>> I would vote to ditch Fl->FL symlinks altogether not to complicate
>>>> configure files unnecessarily and put this incompatible change into
>>>> documentation within fltk-1.1 -> fltk-1.3 transition module. It would
>>>> encourage the users to correct "FL/" in their sources and
>>>> write portable
>>>> code.
>>> +1
>> +1
>
> +1 from me too.
>
> But what about the .h -> .H links? Drop them too? IMHO we should do this too,
> because this will make things absolutely clear: only correct spelling works.
Offhand I'd say all links == bad.
It just promotes bad code.
> [ The only drawback I can see is that we might get lots of feedback about
> compile errors because of missing header files. And the OP's problem with
> mixing
> FLTK versions might become bigger, because old installed headers/links might
> exist, as in the OP's case. ]
This is true, it could make casing errors /worse/ in the case of
pre-installed versions of FLTK.
So for the years where 1.1 might be 'installed', folks using the
newer code without links won't be 'protected'.
Mmm.
Too bad there isn't some way the new #include files could detect
if there's a mix of the old ones. I don't think the FLTK version
macros can really help us here, since those only get set once.
But if they were set and reset each time they were include'ed,
we could detect them, and throw a #warning.
Tough problem..
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
