lostgallifreyan wrote:
grischka <gris...@gmx.de> wrote:
(04/04/2009 16:40)
As people seem consequently to ignore what's called readme.txt,
meybe we should just get rid of it and have some Windows section
in tcc-doc.html, respectively extend what's already there:
(5.3 PE-i386 file generation)
I think that might partly be because the first lines suggest it is
additional reading, so people do start there but skip it and return
to it only later, trying to take on new info at a time when not
yet sure of their ground, so its info doesn't sink in. Happened
to me for a while... I think the sequencing of the info is crucial.
The Quick start section is a very good idea. Even when lots of
work must be done (particularly when so?) I think it's vital
that some early results are seen, to encourage effort.
Separating Windows info from the rest I don't know about.. Might
be less daunting to make transitions if instead those things common
to all are placed first, to ease later changes. I think the
simplification of the quick start examples has implications for
stuff like paths. It's ok to let Windows and Linux users be expected
to figure out how their own system paths work, but also it is
worth directly stating, very early, that TCC can be passed to Windows
by a DOS path, but that things should be passed to TCC by quoted
full long name paths. That assertion would save a lot of time for
newcomers. Trust me,
No, I don't trust you. I just type
tcc hello_win.c
and it works. Why should we recommend horrible stuff like
"DOS path" and "quoted full long name paths" to newcomers?
--- grischka
"5.3 PE-i386 file generation" is not the first place a Windows
newcomer is likely to look. :) The place to hook our attention to
it is the first point in Quick Start where a command has implications
specific to Windows. That signpost can be placed very early though,
along with a remark about paths to and for TCC.
One thing that might be best moved to the quick start, as tutorials
are likely to want this, is that pair of commands for building a
program that uses an .rc resource. Whether the differences between
windows.h in tcc and that of gcc are significant I don't know.
If in doubt I'd probably temporarily replace the gcc one with tcc's
windows.h file, as an experiment with that worked for me, though
either file worked ok. I guess if the resource was compiled
using C either will work.
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
