Subject: Re: Gnome interface status report
From: Lyndon Drake (email@example.com)
Date: Tue 13 Jul 1999 - 06:58:54 EST
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 11:34:49AM +0200, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> Committed yet? I don't seem to get these with cvs update ...
Oops. Done now.
> Re X11/gnome: Last week I suggested that eventually we might have
> something like
> unix/X11 => libRX11.so
> unix/gnome => libRgnome.so
> maybe also
> and at startup do
> My impression was that the comments we received were all positive. So,
> maybe we should keep this in mind.
> Even without the GUI DLL, the above organization would be a lot cleaner.
> How easy would it be to accomplish that? It seems that we can have
> in common, and maybe we only need to take waitforActivity() out from
I like the idea of organising the files this way. The shared library thing
could be a bit tricky, but I guess it could be done.
are already used directly from the unix directory by the Gnome interface.
We could easily split up system.c into a couple of files. This would give
|-system.c, devPS.c, ..., sock.c
| |-system-X11.c, edit.c, devX11.c, ...
| |-system-gnome.c, edit.c, devGnome.c, ...
Doing this as a source split (rather than turning things into shared
libraries) would mean putting main into system-X11.c and system-gnome.c,
but would make maintaining the source for the stuff that's share between
both interfaces much simpler.
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue 04 Jan 2000 - 14:16:05 EST