Re: Xft
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> Well, no, that's not really right since we can do
better.
Fine. So XE_COMPLEX_OPTION needs two defaults then. One default when
the options isn't mentioned at all and another default when the user
wants the option but with no details specified? This doesn't sound
that hard to get right.
No. It's just that Malcolm completely rewrote my code so I don't know
how to do it without studying his.
Maybe XE_COMPLEX_OPTION works for the other options except xft so we
ought to introduce another macro XE_XFT_OPTION in order to play with
it without messing up for other options?
I don't think so. I mean, we all do keep a reasonably satisfactory
copy of XEmacs installed somewhere, right? So it's only the bleeding
edge tester version that might lose some desired options. Just be
moderately careful to make sure that an explicit spec for all
components works correctly.
If you feel really nervous, just tell Mike and Vin *not* to move your
patch from xemacs branch to xemacs-beta branch until you say so.
[Aside to Mike and Vin: I think you *should* accept such requests for
now, but we need to be careful about the workflow so it doesn't become
a burden on you.]
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta