> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:47:55 +1000 (GMT+1000), Allan Rae wrote:
>
> >The first draft of libsigc++ integration uses a slightly modified version
> >of the libsigc++ configure.in in the sigc++ directory. Hmmm, does NT let
> >you have a directory called "sigc++"? What about OS/2?
>
> OS/2-HPFS (the standard): yes, the old DOS-compatibility system (FAT):
> no.
> But there may exist obscure old file/directory management software that
> has problems.
>
> So, any reason not to use libsigcxx or libsigcpp?
The library itself is called libsigc.a because automake restrictions.
Thus only the header file has a special name. However, it has
been tested and works with that name on DOS with djgpp and even riscos.
Thus I haven't found there to be any problem.
Naming of files is always hard because very few things are the same
on all platforms. If you must cut the header name then use sigc as
then you are sure to get your copy and not the users locally installed
version.
(You may also need to rename the namespace or gtk-- GUI may not
work.)
--Karl
