Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions

[David Ayers]

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:

> On 2005-05-05 10:33:26 +0100 Sheldon Gill <sheldon@westnet.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> Besides which, the question I was raising is value. What is the real
>> value in keeping them? What is the value in getting rid of them? What
>> is the effort in properly maintaining them.
>>
>> I see the choice:
>> a) Better, more complete documentation which is readily accessible
>> b) Trawl your way through conditionals in the headers and work it out
>>
>> If we're to make it easier and better I think (a) has far more value
>> to the project than (b).
> 
> 
> This is a straw-man argument ... nobody is or has advocated trawling
> through conditonals to work things out, and nobody is arguing about the
> standard of documentation ... we are both proposing the same standard of
> documentation.
> You are proposing explicit markup in comments, I'm proposing impicit
> markup in the form of #ifdefs.  In noth cases autogsdoc produces
> identical xml and html output.
> 
>>> It's a big mistake to assume that, just because we have no use for a
>>> feature, the feature should be removed.
>>
>>
>> Why? If *we* have no use for a feature, why shouldn't it be removed?
> 
> 
> Because you and I are not the only users of GNUstep.  If you want
> software that does exactly what you want ... you can fork your own
> version, but if you beleive in free software you have to make it good
> for other people too.
> 

FWIW, I vore for parsing of preprocessor directives.  I also think that
the OPENSTEP define is still useful.  We still use WebObjects
installations and I'm sure we are not the only ones.  This feature is
useful, so unless it poses an unreasonable burden on maintance, I think
we should keep it.

I don't think that having multiple ways to declare the conformance (and
therefor risking conflicts) is a good idea, but I won't push toward
removing for the <standard> markup.

Cheers,
David