On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:09:27AM -0700, SL Baur wrote: > Marat Boshernitsan <maratb(a)cs.berkeley.edu&gt; writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > > > Hi, > > I'd like to give the experimental DLL support a try, and perhaps do some > > work on it. Which CVS branch should I grab off the cvs.xemacs.org? > > There is identical support in both the 21.0 and 21.2 branches. It > worked the last time I tested it. > > > Was J. Kean Johnston's patch ever integrated? > > No. It was never submitted for entry into the codebase. 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.