Hello<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Brendan Luchen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bml4633@rit.edu">bml4633@rit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
By conflicts, do you mean name clashes, or duplication, or something<br>
else? I'm thinking of adding a prefix to all routines, e.g.<br>
T4K_CheckFile() to avoid naming conflicts until later in the summer,<br>
when it's time to permanently switch over TuxMath and TuxType to use<br>
the library instead of internal implementations. Then, it will be a<br>
choice between adding the T4K_ prefix to all function calls (ouch) or<br>
using macros to patch things up. But that's mostly my problem.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>My problem was to consider libt4k-common for my code or not.</div><div>So , as David pointed out that it would be better to go without considering libt4k-admin</div><div>I also decide to go with that. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">>If I Recall Correctly, Vikas, you're working on the admin tool?</blockquote><div> </div><div>My work will aslo involves changes in Tuxmath and Tuxtype.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">If so then I expect there will not be *too much* overlap between what you're<br>
writing and what is already in libt4kcommon. I will try to keep an eye<br>
on your stuff, and when it is almost complete, I think we should then<br>
move it into the library.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, that will be fine. </div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Regards ,<br>Vikas Singh<br><br>