>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Ooh... I am annoyed with xforms... I'd be glad to get rid of it Lars> 1.0 or no 1.0. How long were we promissed a open source xforms? Lars> How many times has the 1.0 released been promissed now? I just Lars> do not trust that project... We'll see what spl manages to do now that he is in charge. However, he did promise that 1.0 would be here on may 1 whatever happens (except if bin laden blows up his university, if I remember well). Not a very good looking start :) Lars> OTOH, to switch we need something better to switch to, and the Lars> framework for making the switch and cleanup possible. We are Lars> beginning to get closer to that now, and I rejoice at the mere Lars> thought. I am happy to see you rejoice. Lars> That same issue will come up more and more with exceptions as Lars> well, besides I turned exceptions on some days ago and have not Lars> received any bad flak yet... (how come?) So 1.3.0cvs is already much bigger than 1.2.0? Lars> I saw some report at the gcc mailing list today that binaries Lars> using lots of templates got reduced by a factor of 5 during the Lars> last 24h. Not sure what this is about... and it will not come Lars> until 3.2. anyway. I saw it too, but it look rather vague. This would be good news... Lars> Anyway... please also remember _why_ lystring (and LString) was Lars> introduced: to that we could use something the was resembling a Lars> real standard string (and something that was not "char const Lars> *"). Now almost all compilers have <string> that surpasses us Lars> when it comes to being standard. Yes. But the bloat is a pain. Lars> If you see that, please tell me pronto, it is not like my Lars> compiles are fast either... Sorry, it should have been 'I trust you to save...' Lars> Yes, and I understand that this is cumbersome..., (and Lars> especially on a laptop where the io-subsystem usually has a lot Lars> to be wanted) So what are your concrete plans to reduce compile time/space? JMarc
