Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX

[Marcus Müller]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 07:18 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:

> While I do take part in flamewars :-) I think the actual code should
> remain as most friendly as possible to all users, even those damn Apple
> coders who are using such an obsolete archaic relict of a decade ago 
> like
> #import :-), so we're keeping this -Wno-import flag by default. :-)

*lol* Good to see that even those stubborn, overtheoretical GNUsteppers 
have at least some sense of humour ;-)))

> Finally, I don't think the autogsdoc example is particularly 
> relevant ...
> it was meant to be an internal GNUstep base tool, and only recently
> Richard changed his mind :-) and thought it would be good to port it to
> MacOSX.  So it's not particularly surprising that it depends on a lot of

What? I thought that was my idea - hence the reason for the whole 
thread. But anyways ... I know I repeat myself, but with all that "why 
#include rules and #import sucks" stuff the whole discussion moved away 
from my initial point: Who is doing what now?

I can provide a list of classes within GNUstep base which at least 
contain categories which I think should be moved outside base, probably 
(most probably, as Richard had that idea on FOSDEM) into a bundle which 
will be loaded by gnustep-base. Doing so would ensure the code is still 
within base, but as a matter of fact, it would be isolated in a way that 
makes it very easy to create a Mac OS X framework of it - something that 
people on OS X need if they want to run i.e. autogsdoc on OS X. Phew ...

Comments?

<Marcus


--
Marcus Mueller  .  .  .  crack-admin/coder ;-)
Mulle kybernetiK  .  http://www.mulle-kybernetik.com
Current projects: finger znek@mulle-kybernetik.com