On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 07:58:22AM -0700, Joe Siebenmann wrote:
> Could you please think about replacing your 'multiapp' multiple code section
> example? It's a "toy" program, and a more "realistic" example app would
> help people through multiple code section problems much better. Something
> with at leat 2 .c files and an .rcp would be great.
Sure. I've thought about it for 3 seconds, and the answer is no. I've
got better things to do. It's a toy program because it's intended to
demonstrate one thing. If other things were added to make it a more
realistic application, they would be distractions.
My original multiapp test program had two source files so that it could
test that calling between different sections worked across separate
compilation units. I'm not sure why that went away (I think I was trying
to simplify the example, but apparently that was misguided), so I've
brought it back. OTOH a .rcp file would be entirely irrelevant and add an
unnecessary dependency on pilrc.
It seems to me that what you really need is not a larger example of
something that also already works, but more of a tutorial demonstrating
what can go wrong and how to fix it. So I've added such a tutorial to
multiapp.
> It may seem simple for you, but for me it's been a nightmare..
[...]
> Yes, I got multiapp to compile and run, but it's much different trying to
> get a "real" large app to work.
Actually in my experience getting a "real" large app to work is not so
different. It takes me about half an hour to get the Address Book working
as a prc-tools multiple code sections application, so I'll make allowances
and imagine that it should take you an hour. :-)
I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why they think this is
nightmarishly difficult. (I understand that some people find adding the
annotations *annoying*, but that is a different thing from *difficult*.)
AFAIK the only nightmare is the random crashes due to missing declarations,
and they're entirely detectable at compile time.
> I see conflicting developer info on many
> points, and makefiles that go in every direction..
It's actually not my fault if other people's developer info and makefiles
are wrong. If you have specific URLs in mind, perhaps you could tell us
so that modifications can be suggested to their authors, but that is all.
I suggest you consider http://prc-tools.sourceforge.net/ to be the least
incorrect.
John
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
