[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fail on osx between 2/4/2009 and 2/5/2009

From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
Subject: Re: fail on osx between 2/4/2009 and 2/5/2009
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:19:47 +0900
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (Shij┼Ź) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:30:48 +0200, Adrian Robert <address@hidden> said:

>>> You have expressed reservations because you feel the port tries to
>>> do things in a different way from the rest of emacs, but that is
>>> not really accurate.  It would be counterproductive.  As I've said
>>> before, the port aims for clean, clear code taking into account
>>> both other ports' approaches and the fact that Cocoa is an OO API.
>>> It's not always going to fit as well as Carbon or X, but it has
>>> been improving.
>> Could you give some concrete examples of the "improvement" by the
>> use of OO in the Cocoa/GNUstep port?

> The "improving" I meant was getting the NS port code more parallel
> with code in other ports, compared to the state, say, a year ago.
> Despite some tension arising from the fact that the other ports
> interface with non-OO and lower-level APIs on the platform's side.

I see.  I misread it as "the code deviates from those in other ports,
but that makes improvement with respect to OO".

>> And if you read the code of my Carbon+AppKit port, you will notice
>> the difference is not in OO vs.  non-OO.

> Is that code available to read somewhere?

As I've mentioned here several times,


                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]