Re: Hourglass only for X-windows?

["Lennart Borgman" <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>

> > There is something I do not understand in your argument. How about
> > HAVE_MOUSE, HAVE_SOUND?
>
> These are configure-time definitions, unlike HAVE_HOURGLASS.  They
> test the basic capabilities of the underlying platform, while
> HAVE_HOURGLASS tells something about Emacs support of the feature, not
> about its availability on the platform.

I see. Then it would maybe be better to call it HOURGLASS_SUPPORTED.


> Jason responded with a clear and eloquent explanation, and I can only
> say I agree with him 100%.

You both did and that made me wonder how we could come to so different
conclusions. It seems to me like you say (as above) that the constants are
telling something about the platform in itself. That is one use of them, a
technical use.

Another use of constants could be telling if a feature is support. Then the
constant is of course still platform dependend (but on next abstraction
level so to say). That is what I propose.

However Stefan just suggested to use stubs instead to make the code more
readable. That is what I also suggested, but I thought most people here
would like the HOURGLASS_SUPPORTED better at the moment since it is perhaps
quicker to implement right now. But that assumption might just be a mistake
by me?