Henri Lesourd wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Definitely not: most of the time, the patch would be rejected, except
if the author is extremely careful in following the coding style.
Well, that's your project policy I guess. Instead of doing that, you
could review the patches and educate the contributor to increase his
coding style instead of just rejecting his patch. Of course, being
more liberal will mean that the code quality will worsen here and
there, but everything can be cleaned afterwards if needed.
This policy is more costly, we cannot afford it, at least
not now.
I understand that but maybe I should add: one educated developer means
another reviewer. IOW This policy sustains itself :-) That's our current
policy in LyX and it works quite well provided that you have a core of 4
or 5 reviewers.
>>> So, if this is the only reason for the glue library, I don't
>>> see a very big added value.
>>>
>> The added value is that people can develop new widgets
>> independently, and load these widgets inside TeXmacs *without the
>> need of recompiling TeXmacs*.
>
>
> You can do that with C++, I am 100% sure of this.
>
Well, check your documentation. Mine says: [[ C++'s greatest
weaknesses in this area is the lack of a C++ ABI on some platforms
and the lack of a native notion of a dynamically linked library. ]]
B. Stroustrup (interview): C++: past, present, and future. Frontier
Channels, September 2006.
BS says "on some platforms". The ABI is stable with gcc (since 3.3
IIRC), intel (I guess) and MSVC compilers.
Read carefully: "on some platforms" means "there is no standard
solution". Thus perhaps you can do it, but it will remain a
hack depending on the particular compiler, kind of. Thus, it
is not very okay to use it.
Right, it depends on the target platform. But the reality is that, if he
wants to touch a lot of users, a binary plugin developer will target
wide spread platforms, Win, Linux or Mac. If the plugin developer target
a more obscure platform then, most likely, he will take care of the
plugin upgrade for his low number of users when the ABI is broken (if
that ever happen).
Hem, I have to admit you are right, here. That's a
useful thing to know :-).
Alleluia :-)
I hope I have clarified the matter.
You clarified the matter, no doubt (although the
magic receipt for the name mangling remains a little
bit mysterious, but probably there are ways to avoid
it).
I don't know, maybe. I have to admit I never tried to understand the
inner working of the methods.
Abdel.
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
