On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Jameson Rollins wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:47:24 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojk...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote: > > This function have quite a lot dependencies. We may reduce them later it > > it is a problem. > > --- > > lib/c-ctype.c | 398 +++++++ > > lib/c-ctype.h | 297 +++++ > > lib/getdate.c | 3497 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/getdate.h | 22 + > > lib/getdate.y | 1572 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/gettime.c | 48 + > > lib/intprops.h | 83 ++ > > lib/timespec.h | 39 + > > lib/verify.h | 140 +++ > > 9 files changed, 6096 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 lib/c-ctype.c > > create mode 100644 lib/c-ctype.h > > create mode 100644 lib/getdate.c > > create mode 100644 lib/getdate.h > > create mode 100644 lib/getdate.y > > create mode 100644 lib/gettime.c > > create mode 100644 lib/gettime.h > > create mode 100644 lib/intprops.h > > create mode 100644 lib/timespec.h > > create mode 100644 lib/verify.h > > Hi, Michal. I don't fully understand what's going on here, but it seems > like you're embedding code copies from somewhere else. If that's the > case, is there a reason that we would need to do that, rather than just > linking against an external library?
Well, if the embedded code is available in a library, it would be definitely better to just use the library. But the above code is statically linked to things like `date` command and is not available separately. Most of the dependencies could be eliminated since they usually replicate functionality which is available in modern C library and are there only for compatibility reasons. On the other hand, if anybody knows a better date parser, perhaps in a separate library, let me know. -Michal _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
