On 2005-06-21 20:13:34 +0100 Alex Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 2005-06-20 17:43:06 +0100 Adam Fedor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does this seem like a reasonable solution? Considering the code isn't
supposed to be used anyway? Or perhaps we should really make good on our
promise to depreciate this code?
I think it's a harmless change.
It's a long time since I looked at the mframe stuff though ... so I'm not
sure we can simply remove all of it (which would be nice), and my
inclination is to just leave it in place and accept patches ...
until/unless someone gets time to look at it carefully.
Can you give an actual rationale for why you feel mframe should not be
removed, given that it is deprecated and seems to cause compilation
problems
with EVERY new minor (not sub-minor) GCC version? Honestly, I'm curious to
hear why you think we should just keep band-aiding the problem incessantly
when it's the source of a lot of BS, and probably also a reason why some
people try GNUstep, fail to get it to work/compile, and then give up and go
use something else that functions.
Read what I wrote.
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
