Re: -DFOO_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -vs -lfoo-compat

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.

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


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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]