[Texmacs-dev] Re: Compiling TexMacs on OSX

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Henri Lesourd wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > >  Definitely not: most of the time, the patch would be rejected, except
> > >  if the author is extremely careful in following the coding style.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's your project policy I guess. Instead of doing that, you 
> > could review the patches and educate the contributor to increase his 
> > coding style instead of just rejecting his patch. Of course, being 
> > more liberal will mean that the code quality will worsen here and 
> > there, but everything can be cleaned afterwards if needed.
> This policy is more costly, we cannot afford it, at least
> not now.

I understand that but maybe I should add: one educated developer means 
another reviewer. IOW This policy sustains itself :-) That's our current 
policy in LyX and it works quite well provided that you have a core of 4 
or 5 reviewers.

> > > >>> So, if this is the only reason for the glue library, I don't
> > > >>> see a very big added value.
> > > >>>
> > > >> The added value is that people can develop new widgets
> > > >> independently, and load these widgets inside TeXmacs *without the
> > > >> need of recompiling TeXmacs*.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can do that with C++, I am 100% sure of this.
> > > >
> > >  Well, check your documentation. Mine says: [[ C++'s greatest
> > >  weaknesses in this area is the lack of a C++ ABI on some platforms
> > >  and the lack of a native notion of a dynamically linked library. ]]
> > >  B. Stroustrup (interview): C++: past, present, and future. Frontier
> > >  Channels, September 2006.
> >
> >
> > BS says "on some platforms". The ABI is stable with gcc (since 3.3 
> > IIRC), intel (I guess) and MSVC compilers.
>
> Read carefully: "on some platforms" means "there is no standard
> solution". Thus perhaps you can do it, but it will remain a
> hack depending on the particular compiler, kind of. Thus, it
> is not very okay to use it.
Right, it depends on the target platform. But the reality is that, if he 
wants to touch a lot of users, a binary plugin developer will target 
wide spread platforms, Win, Linux or Mac. If the plugin developer target 
a more obscure platform then, most likely, he will take care of the 
plugin upgrade for his low number of users when the ABI is broken (if 
that ever happen).

> Hem, I have to admit you are right, here. That's a
> useful thing to know :-).

Alleluia :-)

> > I hope I have clarified the matter.
> You clarified the matter, no doubt (although the
> magic receipt for the name mangling remains a little
> bit mysterious, but probably there are ways to avoid
> it).
I don't know, maybe. I have to admit I never tried to understand the 
inner working of the methods.

Abdel.