Re: Re:commit: abi: Args & psiconv

From: Patrick Lam (plam@plam.lcs.mit.edu)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 23:10:08 EDT

  • Next message: Andrew Dunbar: "Re: Re:commit: abi: Args & psiconv"

    On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 03:25:53AM +0100, Andrew Dunbar wrote:

    > In the past didn't we try to keep our external
    > requirements to a minimum? I'm starting to be
    > concerned that we may requiring too many libraries
    > and that some of them may not be properly XP.

    I think that on all systems besides Windows, popt is the
    correct library to use for commandline parsing (which
    really, really sucks right now.) Plus, gnome uses popt
    already.

    It may or may not be the case that we want to avoid
    using popt on Windows. Windows apps still do take
    command-line arguments, but they're slightly different
    from command-line arguments on other platforms (which
    do mostly seem similar).

    One thing I've thought of is a preprocessing phase on the
    commandline before we let popt at it. Not sure yet.

    > This is what I mean by "properly XP". The Windows
    > equivalent to a lot of command-line options might
    > sometimes be the context menu...

    I couldn't understand this sentence.

    pat



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 03 2002 - 23:12:49 EDT