At 12:15 PM -0500 1/31/02, Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 11:42 -0500 2002.01.31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>Mac::Carbon could potentially run on OS 9, while the Cocoa module
>>couldn't. If you don't think that's a problem, I'll go with it. (I
>>don't much care, I just need to call it something...)
>
>Right,
At 11:42 -0500 2002.01.31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Mac::Carbon could potentially run on OS 9, while the Cocoa module
>couldn't. If you don't think that's a problem, I'll go with it. (I
>don't much care, I just need to call it something...)
Right, but it is for Mac. I'd also recommend something for
At 8:00 AM -0500 1/31/02, Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 00:52 -0500 2002.01.31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>I'm writing modules to interface to Cocoa on OS X. I'm unsure as to
>>whether I should be working with Foundation:: and Cocoa::, or
>>OS_X::Foundation and OS_X::Cocoa. (I'd prefer the former pair, but
>
At 00:52 -0500 2002.01.31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>I'm writing modules to interface to Cocoa on OS X. I'm unsure as to
>whether I should be working with Foundation:: and Cocoa::, or
>OS_X::Foundation and OS_X::Cocoa. (I'd prefer the former pair, but
>space under OS_X or OSX would be OK.
I would pref
I'm writing modules to interface to Cocoa on OS X. I'm unsure as to
whether I should be working with Foundation:: and Cocoa::, or
OS_X::Foundation and OS_X::Cocoa. (I'd prefer the former pair, but
space under OS_X or OSX would be OK.
--
Dan
---
