Re: 16-bit versions of gnuplot doomed?

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> I think "graphics.c" is the file I argued should be restructured because 
> 2D and 3D graphics seemed to be bifurcating.  (Ultimately, everything 
> ends up being plotted in 2D.)  

Not everything, strictly.  PM3D stuff doesn't.

> It should be just the core routines for graphics and then maybe a
> "graph2D.c" and "graph3D.c".  If a major change is made to graphics.c
> right now it will undoubtedly mess up some of the patches currently on
> SF.  

Not necessarily.  I think I can pull it off while only adding
#ifdef's to graphics.c.  I'll effectively compile the same file
twice, but select different parts of it to actually be compiled.
That's a bit hairy, but if patch compatibility is a major concern,
it can be done.

> make work in the time span of making a release.  Maybe it would be best
> to not rock the 16-bit boat until 4.1. 

Which will be even bigger, and thus harder to port to 16-bitters. Not to
mention there's not even a *hint* of a plan when a 4.1 might happen.  
Averaging over the history of releases since 3.5, that may take 2
years....


-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.