I'm a changelog away from finally submitting my variable-size page patch (so
give me a few months ;-)), but I just thought I'd bring up an overall design
issue. It looks like someone's added some infrastructure for the command-line
interface to the GUI interface code (eg WM_APP_UNATTENDED_FINISH).
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 17:25, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> Agree/Disagree/Flame?
Agree but:
There are two sets of command line parameters.
1) Drive the 'engine'
2) Drive the GUI.
I.e. if I want the GUI to skip site selection, that is not an engine
change, it is a GUI change.
I do want us to get
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 21:46, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Will the engine have any command line parsing capability? Or will the
> GUI/CLI parse the parameters, and make a call to the engine API to tell it
> about them? I am undecided what is better.
Likewise. Given the wonderful, distributed GetOpt++, we
Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 17:25, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Agree/Disagree/Flame?
>
> Agree
Me too.
> but:
>
> There are two sets of command line parameters.
> 1) Drive the 'engine'
> 2) Drive the GUI.
>
> I.e. if I want the GUI to skip site selection, that is not an engine
