On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:42:01PM +0000, Carlos A M dos Santos wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Alexander Mai wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile we have two versions of incorporated Xpm stuff, being
> > lib/Xm/LTXpm.c and lib/Xm-2.0/Xpm.c. This is more or less the same
> > stuff, except that the functions have different names _LtXpmFoo
> > instead of XpmFoo and perhaps very minor changes.
>
> In Motif 2.1, XpmFoo functions where renamed XmeXpmFoo end there are
> macros in XpmP.h defining XpmFoo as XmeXpmFoo and so on. Why don't you do
> the same for both versions, since nothing prevents you from having some Xm
> 2.x stuff in the Xm 1.2 library, provided that you do'nt break
> compatibility?
No, I don't like this.
In fact I just dropped some Xme stuff from the 1.2 headers
and libs (IIRC).
We should aim to get things done really clean (see below)
> > Shouldn't we try to
> > get this done in a single file like
> >
> > #ifdef XmVERSION >=2
> > #define XPMPref Xpm
> > #else
> > #define XPMPref _LtXpm
> > #endif
> >
> > void XPMPrefFoo(void) {
> > ... }
>
> This will not work. Try using '##' to concatenate strings.
One shouldn't start writing pseudo-code which looks like real code ;-)
Hmm, I also found "Ltxpm" as a prefix now ...
We have some constraints here: 1) to get things work as they do work for our
1.2 and the Motif 2.x libs, 2) reduce maintainance work and
3) minimize the work to be done on the imported Xpm source.
If we agree that we won't need to incorporate another Xpm source drop
then we can go on clean the Xpm stuff which is our no. 1 source of
compiler warnings. If 2) shows a difference between 2.0 and 2.1 we
have another problem - up to now the Xm-2.0 tree calls itself '2.0',
but was targeted at some non-existing '2.x' feature set.
Since we have no CSText and libXmC++ we are probably heading for the
wrong target and should find a way to offer a Xm-2.1.
[no, please no suggestions to write some gimmicks to help
Motif instead of improving LessTif ... :-]
--
Alexander Mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
