Re: Gnome interface status report

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: Gnome interface status report
From: Lyndon Drake (
Date: Tue 13 Jul 1999 - 06:58:54 EST

Message-ID: <>

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/...
> unix/X11 =>
> unix/gnome =>
> maybe also
> unix/kde
> ???
> and at startup do
> LoadSharedLib("libR$")
> 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
> *sock*
> dynload.c
> hpdlfcn.c
> in common, and maybe we only need to take waitforActivity() out from
> system.c?

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
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To:

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue 04 Jan 2000 - 14:16:05 EST