Re: "uname" in makefile

Martin wrote: >Or you could just use the autoconf stuff that is already there... Yes, that would be best. The original question was sort of generic, so I answered it that way, because the user didn't specify how he wanted to use it. I assumed he needed to set up something like paths to compilers

Re: "uname" in makefile

Or you could just use the autoconf stuff that is already there... In configure.in: -- AC_CANONICAL_HOST case "${host}" in *-*-solaris*) platform=SOLARIS ;; *-*-sysv5*) platform=UNIXWARE ;; *-*-linux*) platform=LINUX ;; [etc...] *) platform=UN

Re: "uname" in makefile

Rajesh, Although I don't use it in the makefile, I do use it in a wrapper script that I run to set up the development environment for one of my projects. Of course, this could be used in the makefile too, as part of a shell command. You could create a dummy dependancy that is always run before

Re: Mac OS X, Xerces, and Cocoa

Hi Bill, No, I haven't heard of anybody working on an Objective-C wrapper. Given that the Objective-C++ compiler ought to be out within a month or two, it wouldn't seem worth it unless somebody (you?) has an immediate pressing need. -jdb On 6/5/01 9:28 PM, "Bill Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Mac OS X, Xerces, and Cocoa

James, Do you know if anyone is (or has attempted) creating an Objective-C wrapper for Xerces? Until there's an Objective-C++ compiler again, building a wrapper seems like the only way to get Xerces into a Cocoa app. --Bill

Re: "uname" in makefile

If you are looking into these things, I would really suggest that you fix up the somewhat broken usage of GNU "autoconf". The support for autoconf is half there, but really in a bit of a messy state since people have been commiting changes to the configure script without modifying the configure.i

"uname" in makefile

Hi all, I am just curious whether using uname in makefile will make our life easier. I am trying to modify the makefile with "uname" so that it figures out OS-type itself and correspondingly does platform specific things. Any thoughts/comments? rajesh ___

Re: Anyone using C and XML

A couple of c xml parsers are available.. try expat from jclark.com. It doesnt validate though. rajesh >From: "Vikas Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Anyone using C and XML >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:16:34 +0530 > >Hi anyone > >Is there a

XMLAttDef::JustFaultIn and reuse validator

In my testing of Xerces 1.4 while reusing the validator, I've discovered that there are times when undeclared attributes get faulted into the name pools and get stuck there. I can parse a file once, and I'll get an undeclared attribute error and then I'll parse it again and I don't get the mes

New: command line build support for Mac OS X

I've added some command line configuration and build support for Mac OS X. In doing so I touched a bit of the common configuration infrastructure; I don't believe I busted anybody's build, but please yell at me if I did! There are now three build's support for Mac OS: CodeWarrior build: gen

Re: provide with the const method

Hi Peter, The changes should be available in the next nightly build. We have added 'const' to getGrammar in the Validator classes. Khaled "Peter A. Volchek" wrote: Review the following code: void MyParser::someMethod() { ... const XMLElementDecl* eDecl = getValidator().getGrammar()->getElemDecl(i

Anyone using C and XML

Hi anyone Is there anyone who is using C and XML ?? thanks vikas _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mai

learning XML (was: Bug in SAXParser?)

This is somewhat off topic, so please forgive me, but I expect that there are a lot of XML newbies out there (me included). If you are interested in teaching yourself XML, I suggest _Learning XML_ by Erik T. Ray from O'Reilly. I've read about half of it so far and it has helped out a fair bit.

RE: Bug in SAXParser?

> In this case, I have another question, please keep in mind I'm new >to XML so if it's a stupid question, I apologize. Should the parser ignore >everything after the root element? There's a specific definition of well-formed XML document -- see http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-well-fo

Re: provide with the const method

Of course the changes should be done in all derived classes: XMLValidator.hpp virtual Grammar* getGrammar() const = 0; DTDValidator.hpp virtual Grammar* getGrammar() const; ... inline Grammar* DTDValidator::getGrammar() const { return fDTDGrammar; } SchemaValidator.hpp virtual Grammar* get

provide with the const method

Review the following code: void MyParser::someMethod() { ... const XMLElementDecl* eDecl = getValidator().getGrammar()->getElemDecl(id); ... } I cannot get the XMLElementDecl, because getGrammar() returns not constant pointer. Solutions: 1. add "const" to getGrammar() method 2. remove "const" f

RE: Bug in SAXParser?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:54:06 -0400, Amato, Matt wrote: > In this case, I have another question, please keep in mind I'm new >to XML so if it's a stupid question, I apologize. Should the parser ignore >everything after the root element? What I mean is if I have a valid XML >file and I have

win32 dll for BCB4 first test nearly finished

Yes, it seems to work! I can use it in a big project, more or less 30.000 rows saving dom both to char* and to files. p.s. don't even try to test it under Win98 it doesn't properly work. My test hes been done both under win98 and WinNt. P.s. W Linux, M Windows ;=) ___

Re: [Why were <> used instead of "" for include files?]

"Mitchell, Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just wondering why the include directives in Xerces-C use the <> > system path indicators instead of the "" user path indicators. > > Thanks, > Ray > > - > To unsubscribe, e