Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > A question: shouldn't we do this directly in the Package constructor? > This is the kind of thing we want to hide from the main code, I think.
I'm afraid I disagree. I envisaged Package as doing nothing at all to the world outside. All the constructor does is initialise some member strings. Oh, and invoke lyxerr occassionally. gettext initialisation, setting of paths, creating the temp directory, creating a user support directory. All these things make use of the paths that are found by Package, but they are the responsibility of the main code. This view is reinforced when you consider that the PATH will be augmented with the value of a LyXRC variable in the not too distant future, replacing the hard-coded MacOSX nastiness. Also remember that tex2lyx invokes init_package but doesn't need to augment PATH. > Angus> The 14x patch also resurrects PutEnv that was removed 22 months > Angus> ago by André. Looking at it, I have a question: if ::putenv is > Angus> so evil (and I see that it is) why do we use it in preference > Angus> to ::setenv? > > Maybe because putenv is posix, and setenv is not? So what if setenv is BSD. If it's better and I have it, I should use it, no? -- Angus
