Michael Sweet wrote:
>> But I agree, it rings 'ugly'. Changing it might be worse though,
>> because then the above cycle will probably happen again..
>
> Agreed, although we could use the symlink trick for all of the .H
> files to phase out .H in favor of .h (or create .H files that
> included the .h files after issuing a compile-time warning...)
Sounds like a big doc+code change that in the end might
cause more confusion between "old" and "new" code + docs.
My instinct is to leave it all alone..
if it ain't broke don't fix it, maybe adding parenthetically:
"just cause it's ugly don't mean it's broke".
I figure if anyone asks, just chalk it up as a
"charming idiosyncrasy of pre-millennium computing"
and quickly change the subject.. ;)
OP's issue was solved internally, so I'm thinking "problem solved".
Let's focus on bugs and features and doc strengthening, and keeping
as much back compatibility as we can, to avoid 2.x syndrome.
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
