Re: gdkcursors.h

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 25 Nov 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:

> 
> "Matthias Clasen" <matthiasc poet de> writes:
> 
> > Is there a reason to definition the GdkCursorType enumeration in the way it
> > is
> > done currently, by including gdkcursors.h inside the enumeration ?
> 
> Well, it's done for the sake of the X-derived-headers rule in
> gdk/Makefile.am, but since:
> 
>  * I doubt the set of X cursor defines will _ever_ change.
>  * If it did, we wouldn't want that to imply a change in the
>    GDK API accidentally. (We have a problem in gdkkeysyms.h
>    in that a bunch of non-standard XFree86 only keysyms 
>    snuck in at some point during the 1.3.x series.)

erm, a) what are those keysyms, b) what's holding you off from backing those
out again (removing non-portable symbols shouldn't be locked by API freeze)?

> I'm OK with just putting them into gdkcursor.h and deleting
> the corresponding rule from the Makefile.
>  
> > gtk-doc doesn't grok this, and consequently, my effort on
> > documenting the standard cursors doesn't show up in the api docs.
> 
> Yeah, I had to back out the changes here before releasing
> 1.3.11 to get things to compile properly. Should be easy to
> restore once things are working properly.
> 
> Regrads,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ