Bill Gribble wrote:
> > - Will each module provide its own g-wrappers, I assume? Maybe there
> > needs to be a mechanism or a policy to avoid collisions in that
> > namespace.
>
> That was actually one of my motivations :) The gigantic "gnc.gwp" file
> bugs me because of its unweildyness and unmaintainability. Lots of
> smaller g-wrap files will make it easier to work more towards complete
> coverage of the relevant APIs.
>
> I'm not sure where namespace collisions would be a problem here. Do
> you have an example problem case?
Maybe I do, and maybe I don't. The guile namespaces will be local
to the modules, but I could see how you would have C functions in the
C-side modules which conflict between modules. Unless there's something
in dlopen(), etc. that handles this - I'm not too familiar with that.
Although I guess this wouldn't necessarily be a problem restricted to
the g-wrap interfaces anyway; maybe just a consistent module naming
scheme would be enough?
--
Kevin Finn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
