Re: [PATCH 2/4] Refactor window-system configuration

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

On 12/30/11 1:38 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:26:45 -0800
>> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
>> On the other hand, using a fixed "dispatch header" --- i.e., one that
>> contains a bunch of preprocessor branches and include directives ---
>> forces us to create yet another place that has to know about all
>> possible window systems.
> 
> I see nothing particularly complex about this, FWIW. 

The header decision tree would be more logic that doesn't have to be
there.  It would amount to yet another moving part in the configuration
machine.  Sure, putting this decision tree in one place is better than
pasting it into every C file that does something with a frame (the
current approach), but getting rid of it altogether would be even better.

I honestly don't understand why you're opposed to the include-a-macro
approach, or what you find unclear about it.

> We have our
> share of such ifdefs already

And we should try to centralize these things and make sure we have as
few as possible.  They make code hard to follow, especially when nested.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 235 bytes --]