Re: AFM files no longer required

[Alexandre Julliard]

Ian Pilcher  writes:
> I actually gave quite a bit of thought to the large file issue before
> submitting it, and I would agree with you if there were any functional
> code in the file.  Because it's entirely data, and it's heavily
> interdependent, I really think that one file is better.

I disagree. If the data is so interdependent that you cannot split the
file, you are doing something wrong IMO. And in fact splitting it will
help enforce a clean data structure, which is a major advantage.
> From a build point of view, gcc has no problem at all with the file.  In
> fact it compiles much faster than many of Wine's functional files.

I know some older versions of gcc had problems with large data
structures, using exponential memory to compile them or something like
that.
> If a
> target compiler (does Wine build with anything other than gcc?) does have
> a problem with it, I will yield to necessity.  Until that happens, how-
> ever, I believe that the practical benefit of maintainability outweighs
> stylistic concerns.  (After all, it's not like anyone will ever need to
> read all the way through the file to understand it, as is the case with
> functional code.)

You may not need to read every single line, but you still need to go
through it if you want to understand the structure (this is how I
noticed it was too large...). So please consider splitting it.

AFM files no longer required

[Ian Pilcher]

Here's a thought.  How about creating a data subdirectory for the Post-
Script driver (i.e. dlls/wineps/data).  The data could then be put in
separate files in that directory without confusing things.  (The data
isn't interdependent from a build point of view, just from a main-
tenance point of view.)

I don't know the Makefile magic necessary to do this, but if someone
could step forward with that piece, I suspect it would address both of
our concerns.

What do you think?