Hello Matthias, Thanks for considering this. It is always educational reading your code; I remember the work you did porting Fltk to Mac OS classic which I used to compile with Metrowerks Codewarrior on a UMAX S900. That was a long time ago now but it was my first introduction to Fltk.
Nicholas > Am 23.04.2009 11:35 Uhr schrieb "MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK)" unter > <[email protected]>: > > >> In retrospect, I wonder if your code might be integrated into > >> Fl_Preferences. The Root enum currently has two values: > >> > >> enum Root { SYSTEM=0, USER }; > >> > >> But if another one was added: > >> > >> enum Root { SYSTEM=0, USER, APPLICATION }; > >> > >> then the class could make a Root node using the application > >> directory instead. I don't know about others, but I am always > >> weary of making modifications to the Windows registry using > >> SYSTEM, and prefer to keep data and preferences local to the > >> application itself... As I have discovered to my cost, using > >> the "." to get the current directory does not always work. > >> Just an idea. > > > > > > Sounds like a fair idea to me - but I don't know how feasible it is. > > Fl_Pref's is Matthias' baby, so maybe he could express a view on the > > goodness or otherwise of this idea? > > > > Also, for what it is worth, if we do add this function, I'd prefer it > > was not hidden inside Fl_Pref's but was in the fl_functions or similar, > > so that it might be generally available (since I use it a lot anyway!) > > Yes, it both sounds great to me. I suggest an additional function, maybe > > const char *fl_application_path(); > > Which would return a pointer to a buffer that needs to be free'd (since we > need this path usually only once). And I love the idea of adding a new enum > member! > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
