On 2/4/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - is a flat directory structure really what's wanted? I had thought > /bin, /include, /lib, /man directories would be more reasonable. What > is standard practice? I don't see a reason for the Windows distro to be > "different" than other platforms.
For pure win32 applications (not gcc based, or imitating a UNIX environment) I thought that a flat structure is what people use most. You can of course choose a different layout, but there aren't that many files. (On a side note - what do you think of putting in as documentation? The pdf, a single HTML page, or a bundle of HTML pages? I can't decide right now, but I guess a bundle would be most convenient) > > - there's a csi-static.exe but no csc-static.exe. Is the latter desired? Yes. Sometimes it can be convenient to have a static exe without dynamic (DLL) loading issues. And chicken-static should be enough for that case. > > - do you really want chicken.dll, chicken_gui.dll, and uchicken.dll? As > opposed to libchicken.dll, libchicken_gui.dll, and libuchicken.dll. The > lack of consistency in prefixing is confusing. Yes, it's probably better to follow your advice. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
