Re: Which CVS branch for DLL support?

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:09:27AM -0700, SL Baur wrote: Hrvoje and I were thrashing out some of the finer points, and as soon as they are, I shall submit a proper patch. Unfortunately, just as I was getting on top of all of the concerns / enhancements that Hrvoje wanted to see go in, I had to leave for 10 days to work in the UK. I am back now, though, and hope to get things wrapped up real soon. I will have the weekend to get things sorted out and hopefully have a patch on Monday or early next week. Has anyone OTHER than Hrvoje been taking a close look at all of this? Some of the changes required are a little radical when compared to the current way of doing things, and it is my guess that we need concensus on the mechanisms I have employed. The biggest one is how we document variables and subrs. For obvious reasons, we cant use make-docfile, and we need a mechanism for adding the documentation at run-time. I changed things such that code written for dynamic modules used macros called CDEFUN() and CDEFVAR_LISP() etc, and which took the documentation string as an actual argument (rather than a C comment) but Hrvoje didnt like that idea (Ipersonally dont see why, but I changed things at his request). The current merchanism involves calling macros for documenting subrs and variables during module initialization task code 3 (its a whole task code specifically for adding documentation). The problem I have with this approach is it increases the distance between an subrs definition and its documentation. Not necessarily a bad thing but I FAR prefered the CDEFSUBR() approach. Perhaps we should open the actual issues to debate? Would it be constructive to do so, and are all the right people reading this? -- J. Kean Johnston | "Truth and beauty, beauty and truth. This is all we know, Engineer, SPG | and all we need ever know." -- John Keats, Endymion Santa Cruz, CA +---------------------------------------------------------- Tel: 408-427-7569 Fax: 408-429-1887 E-mail: jkj(a)sco.com