|
From: | Helge Hess |
Subject: | Re: Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding |
Date: | Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:49:09 +0100 |
On Sonntag, Februar 24, 2002, at 07:55 Uhr, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| This isn't an issue any more. We should place a KVC implementation in | FoundationExt if we want to support deprecated OS's like OPENSTEP.| Indeed because KVC is part of Foundation it's much easier now, since you| don't need to maintain runtime specific code in GDL :-)I agree :-) on the last sentence but in this case, why putting "base KVC" in FoundationExt an not base ?
As I wrote, to support old Foundations which do *not* have KVC in Foundation (like the Foundation of OPENSTEP). I would *copy* the code over to FoundationExt (so it's contained in both libraries).
| I think at FOSDEM we discussed the stuff shortly. If I understood| Richard correct, he would like to create a stripped down gstep-base on| other platforms, which IMHO is a nice idea. That is, if you have a | library combo other than *-gnu-*, gstep-base is compiled without| NSArray, NSString, etc, but only the GNUstep additions. You still link| with gstep-base, but get no clashes with libFoundation, | Foundation.framework or whatever :-)Nice idea too but won't it be harder than to move GNUstep additions into FoundationExt (I don't know, just a question:-) ?
Personally I have the same feeling, but Richard seems to have a different opinion with this issue ?
Greetings Helge
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |