Re: -DFOO_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -vs -lfoo-compat

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes:

> On 27 Aug 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > Actually just because GTK+ does it _is_ a good reason to do it. Even
> > if it was a bad idea to do it that way, it's a lot easier to explain
> > people the operation of FOO_DISABLE_DEPRECATED and FOO_ENABLE_COMPAT
> > _once_ than to explain a different system for each library.
> 
>         Hmm, but wait - I have no idea how FOO_DISABLE vs. ENABLE work,
> which one is master, which is slave, where I should define them - as a
> compile flag to gcc ? with ulgy #defines in my source code before gtk
> includes ... etc. I see the argument for homogeneity, it just doesn't seem
> good to me.

 #define GTK_ENABLE_BROKEN   
 
    Include functionality in GTK that is known to not work properly
    and is not supported, but is provided to help porting legacy
    programs

 #define GTK_DISABLE_DREPRECATED

    Do not include functionality that will be removed from GTK
    in future versions of GTK.