Re: [RFC] Proposal for GtkSourceView 3.24, 3.50 and 3.90
- From: Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org>
- To: Matthew Brush <mbrush codebrainz ca>
- Cc: gnome-devtools gnome org
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for GtkSourceView 3.24, 3.50 and 3.90
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 11:31:47 +0100
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:55:40PM -0700, Matthew Brush wrote:
It's nice to support a range of versions so that people with older distros
can use a new version, and people with newer distros can use new features,
etc. Generally it's easy enough, like say supporting GTK 2 and 3, where most
of the stuff is the same or still works. This is also useful for supporting
other platforms like Windows where you're stuck with whatever bundled
versions you can find or whatever's packaged in msys.
Ok, I have a different opinion. I don't like writing conditional code
depending on a certain version of a library. It makes the code harder to
read (and thus can contain more bugs) and harder to test.
But I understand that it can be useful to use a new version of an app on
an old distro. In the future container systems like Flatpak will be much
more widespread I think, so it'll make app development easier, you can
target only one version of GTK+ and be able to install the app on old
distros or newer distros.
I will probably go this route if the need arises. Are you planning to use a
script to automate the renaming of symbols? If so, that might be useful for
generating such a header.
I will use scripts from:
https://github.com/swilmet/gnome-c-utils
I don't think those scripts can be useful for generating a compatibility
header. I will just do a substitution GtkSource -> Gsv, not each symbol
separately.
--
Sébastien
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]