] >Date Index
Re: [wmx] Why I use wmx (fwd)Lasse Rasinen
- Wed Apr 21 13:22:31 1999
Robin Stephenson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Another thing: currently there's a single codebase. Is splintering it
> such a good idea? I feel it's getting sort of fractured internally
> already, what with the dynamic config stuff, and all those other
> #ifdefs, and at some point it's going to become just insanely
> complicated & fall apart. Is there a better way of doing this, and
> yet still adding features? Something other than the C preprocessor,
The suggestions I've seen on this list would change wm[2x]'s nature quite
a bit. I for one feel uneasy about few of those changes. I use the right
button on root window from time to time.
Starting a whole new project would probably make both efforts a lot
cleaner, IMHO. If there are good features on wmg we can always take them
to wmx one-by-one. And vice versa.
OTOH, the code is still pretty intact. Possible ways to make it cleaner
etc. might involve use of C++ features. The menu system is a good example
of this. I'm no C++-design guru, so I can't tell how this could be done.
Then again, the current method seems to work (at least for a while), so
By the way, should we do optional code by #ifdefs or if-blocks?
As far as I know, the compiler should be clever enough to notice if the
code is always/never run and optimize the unnecessary blocks away.