On Jan 19, 2008 2:20 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:21:56 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > babbled: > > As fnmatch is used in eet and evas too, and as fnmatch is not avaialble in > > some platform, I would like to know if it would be a good idea to ave our > > own implementation of the features of fnmatch we use in these 3 libraries. > > > > If so, what about adding it in an existing library ?
> so all we do is duplicate fnmatch for platforms too lame to have a shared glob > matching call? the idea of things like that is to save having to do it all > ourselves. if we can make it a LOT faster or a LOT more efficient, or a lot > of implementations are so buggy that we have to do our own - sure, but just > for > the sake of re-implementing it for the few corner-case platforms that may not > have it natively? Well, I think we can do it better. In fact fnmatch only match one pattern at a time, in edje and in eet we always want to check them all and the automate doing it should not change to offen (Only when new program, signal,... are added). So I think it should be possible to have something faster and more portable. Right now, it's easy for me to duplicate my patch from edje and add it to eet or/and evas. But it would be more efficient to share code between them, adding it to edata for example and making edata a dependecies of eet/evas/edje. It will be a little bit more complex for me to do this, but it will be cleaner. So what solution did you prefer, so I can write the matching patch :-) -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
