From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Mar 17 02:39:53 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id CAA01784 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 02:39:53 -0800 Received: from expo.x.org (expo.x.org [198.112.45.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA01778 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 02:39:52 -0800 Received: from fedora.x.org by expo.x.org id AA12205; Fri, 17 Mar 95 05:39:18 -0500 Received: by fedora.x.org id AA03589; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 05:39:16 -0500 Message-Id: <9503171039.AA03589@fedora.x.org> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patches for X11R6?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:20:14 MST." <9503170120.AA26263@cs.weber.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 05:39:16 EST From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> >Apparently there has been an opaquing of several structs in the >> >latest X release, including the GC. >> >> I'm not sure what those would be. Would you care to elaborate? >The GC, for one, the display (under discussion) for another. Basically, >everything protected by "*_ILLEGAL_ACCESS" that didn't used to be >protected that way. Yes, you mentioned GC specifically, and the prior discussion mentioned Display specifically, so I presumed that when you said "several structs" you meant several besides those already mentioned. Since GC and Display are the only two structures that I know of that were made opaque in R6, I'm trying to figure out what you're referring to. >> >There is a major difference between interface abstraction and the >> >rigorous enforcement of abstraction boundries. >> >> Which is not a valid rationalization for leaving a bug in the sample >> implementation; especially if it's a bug that encourages people to write >> inherently non-portable programs. The R5 Xlib.h warned people not to use >> the fields in these structures, and these fields aren't listed in the >> documentation. The only way they could have found out about them was by >> reading the header file, so if they've been writing non-portable programs, >> they can't say they weren't warned. >Well, I think it should be honor system but whatever. 8-). We just changed the level of trust. Now if you want to cheat you're going to have work harder to do it. :-) >It was for a game... can I be forgiven? Not only forgiven, I think we can even arrange special dispensation from on high :-). X needs more games. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY