Re: Tcl/Tk Interface Unification

[Hans Ronne <hronne@telia.com>]

>This is essentially done, except for sdlconq (as you noted), and
>perhaps the tcltk target should be tkconq rather than all-xconq
>and all-wconq, since we are trying to remove the notion of
>platform from the build process.

That would make sense.

>And this brings up another issue: what should executables be
>named? Currently, things are set up so that both the X11 SDL and
>Tcl/Tk executables get named xconq, and the Windows SDL and Tcl/Tk
>executables get named wconq.exe. In retrospect, perhaps I should
>have set them up to be named sdlconq[.exe] and tkconq[.exe]
>without regard to platform. This would be more in line with cconq.
>What do you think?

Since the name of the game is "xconq" and nothing else, it makes sense to
call the app xconq whenever possible without confusion. This is also how
Stan set up things originally. For example, the Mac app was simply named
Xconq just like the Unix app.

The best solution when multiple targets are around is probably to name the
default build target "Xconq[.exe]" and to keep the other names
(cconq[.exe], tkconq[.exe], sdlconq[.exe] and xtconq) for targets built by
name.

I agree that we can do without "wconq". Otherwise, we should rename the Mac
app "mconq" for consistency. But there is no reason to do that. I always
considered the name "wconq" a temporary hack. Xconq.exe is better.

BTW, the same logic should apply to the image app. It is now named "imfapp"
on the Mac, "wimfapp.exe" on Windows and "ximfapp" on Unix. Why not just
call it "imfapp[.exe]" everywhere? (by strict analogy to xconq it should
perhaps really be named "ximfapp" but the name "imfapp" is what has been
used mostly, even when referring to the unix app).

Hans