Re: Windows support

On 5/10/2011 3:51 AM, James Mansion wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 15:26:54 +0100, KHMan wrote:
>>> I was excited by Lout but rather gave up when it seemed that I
>>> couldn't do the same things as on *nix and found the code style so
>>> impenetrable I couldn't fix it.
>>
>> Lout should build out-of-the-box with Cygwin. (But I haven't
>> built it recently.) [A]
>
> Sure - I do try to avoid Cygwin tho. And while I have vbox, I
> prefer to be able to run native in Windows most of the time (I get
> better battery life that way for a start).

The MinGW native binaries on SF builds all the doc manuals fine, 
and the system call part hasn't changed much. You appear to be 
able to build Win32 apps, so I assume you will not need any 
hand-holding. The MinGW/Win32 tweaks is available on SF -- should 
be dead easy to roll your own builds.

Valeriy has done Win32 builds. We've even done DOS32 builds. So 
some of us Lout users in this community has laid out some working 
options for you. Not much else we can do.

> [snip]I can't really find a polite way to
> describe the structure of it - its like the output from a funky
> source to source translator.

This is unnecessary talk. It's old code done in an academic 
setting with very limited resources. Accept that it's not perfect 
or pretty in the way you prefer or up to your coding standards. We 
know its limitations too, but manpower is short, so such strutting 
and preening is not constructive.

IIRC there is more interest in preprocessing Lout sources to add 
certain stuff rather than calling external programs from within. 
If calling from within can be avoided, then I think going a 
conventional preprocessing route makes for a more simple build 
process for a document.

-- 
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia