Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Do we really want to use a generic and potentially clash-prone word
like HEADLESS? Isn't the normal software engineering practise to use
some package-specific prefix for global C-level identifiers like this?
We already have -DLIBO_WERROR to indicate when --enable-werror is in
force, and -DLIBO_MERGELIBS for --enable-mergelibs. Thus I suggest
using -DLIBO_HEADLESS for this instead.

Sure, I know perfectly well that we have since forever a set of short
non-namespaced identifiers defined for each compilation. Like -DUNX,
-DLINUX, -DWNT, -DPRODUCT etc. But those are mistakes from long back
in history, we don't need to repeat it in new development.

Ideally we should prefix those old ones too, or get rid of them to the
extent possible; for instance many of the OS- or architecture-specific
defines presumably can be replaced by compiler-defined predefined
macros instead. Like _WIN32 instead of WNT, as both MinGW and MSVC
define _WIN32 when compiling for 32- and 64-bit Windows.

--tml

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.