Re: Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding

[Helge Hess]

On Sonntag, Februar 24, 2002, at 07:55  Uhr, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
> > | This isn't an issue any more. We should place a KVC implementation in
> > | FoundationExt if we want to support deprecated OS's like OPENSTEP.
> > | Indeed because KVC is part of Foundation it's much easier now, since 
> > you
> > | don't need to maintain runtime specific code in GDL :-)
>
> I agree :-) on the last sentence but in this case, why putting "base 
> KVC" in FoundationExt an not base  ?

As I wrote, to support old Foundations which do *not* have KVC in 
Foundation (like the Foundation of OPENSTEP). I would *copy* the code 
over to FoundationExt (so it's contained in both libraries).

> > | I think at FOSDEM we discussed the stuff shortly. If I understood
> > | Richard correct, he would like to create a stripped down gstep-base 
> > on
> > | other platforms, which IMHO is a nice idea. That is, if you have a
> > | library combo other than *-gnu-*, gstep-base is compiled without
> > | NSArray, NSString, etc, but only the GNUstep additions. You still 
> > link
> > | with gstep-base, but get no clashes with libFoundation,
> > | Foundation.framework or whatever :-)
>
> Nice idea too but won't it be harder than to move GNUstep additions 
> into FoundationExt (I don't know, just a question
> :-) ?

Personally I have the same feeling, but Richard seems to have a 
different opinion with this issue ?

Greetings
  Helge