Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!decwrl!sgi!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Xt program resource files - How much is enough?
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.033238.12882@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 30 Mar 91 03:32:38 GMT
References: <8887@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Sender: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 19


In article <8887@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, meo@Dixie.Com (Miles ONeal) writes:
|> Unless you give them a too-easy way to really break something,
|> it's difficult to give them too much flexibility. I build in
|> reasonable, minimum defaults via the Arg structs [1] and try
|> to leave the product as configurable as possible. You may
|> need to occasionally test something in the code to make sure
|> things work OK.

Wouldn't it be better to use the fallback resources string
instead of using Arg structs?  I'm assuming that for "reasonable,
minimum defaults" that you mean enough so that a missing app-defaults
file doesn't mess you up.

-- 
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."His lower lip waved poutily with defiance..."