On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:49:03 -0800, Karl Nelson wrote:
>> 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
Thanks for swift answer.
Yes, those name restrictions are quite a mess. "a" through "z" and 1
through 9 should work everywhere.
Greets,
Arnd
