Subject: Re[2]: GSFR: To macro or not to macro?

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:53:52 -0500 (EST)

Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Recognizing the potential for abuse, I _still_ vote for abstraction.

	I'll cast my vote for the abstraction.

	As a matter of practical coding grunt work, by the way, if we agree
on the set of macros, the GSFR API, if you will, some people could actually
begin the grunt work of changing code while we're still debating the final
format of the flags (struct/union-within-struct, one set of flags or two,
etc.) And we can still be changing that format up to the last minute without
breaking hundreds of lines of code. In my experience, this sort of thing has
been a big win.

	(Of course, I'm quite certain we'll all agree on a perfect design
before writing a line of code, but just in case....)   ;-)

> Put a note in the header file stating "these macros may not be changed".
> Detail the reasons why.

	Well, maybe not quite that strongly put...if we can't ever change
them, we lose the advantage of encapsulation.

- Bob

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].