From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Refactor window-system configuration Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4b98eec4a5f68bfcd9233d5e7444de05873225b4.1325166472.git.dancol@dancol.org> <4EFCE9C4.8050908@dancol.org> <4EFCEE59.7030605@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325199956 22915 80.91.229.12 (29 Dec 2011 23:05:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 30 00:05:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2k-0000P8-JC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:05:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33218 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2k-0004pS-2V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57964) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2h-0004pM-D1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2e-0001nG-L6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:47 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:36880) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2e-0001nA-I5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:44 -0500 Original-Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgP2e-0004Xx-4A; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:05:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EFCEE59.7030605@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:48:57 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147020 Archived-At: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 12/29/11 2:43 PM, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: >> Daniel Colascione writes: >> >>> On 12/29/11 2:21 PM, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: >>>> We don't use something like "#include TERM_HEADER" in any other place, >>>> it you really want to consolidate this stuff, creating a new header >>>> file to include seems better. >>> >>> There's a first time for everything, and besides: other projects have >> >> Why add another wrinkle when we have perfectly working solutions already? > > We don't have a working solution. We have a mess, and we're trying to > clean it up. Sure, we don't have header constants right now, but we > don't have any pure-dispatch headers either. > > I suppose we disagree on what counts as a wrinkle. In my mind, it's > simpler for config.h to just tell code what header to include than to > create (and maintain) a header file that consists solely of ifdefs and > more includes. There's a lot more emacs contributors that are fluent in C than contributors fluent with autoconf. Why not cater to the majority?