--- Patrick Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
"XP" as in "Cross Platform". Most Windows users never use the command-line. Many things that can be accomplished (but not all) with the command line, are done in a different way on Windows. And that is by adding "context menu" items for the "filetypes". You can support printing this way for instance, and MSWord does this. You right- click on an MSWord file and the other functions appear in the popup menu. It would be up to the Windows installer to set this up AFAIK - it's done by creating Registry entries. Sometimes these entries use command-lines, sometimes they use more arcane Windowsisms that only Windows hackers understand. All mostly hidden from the user. Andrew. > pat ===== http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
