Re: [AD] Proposal for a set_icon function

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 15:11 29/08/01 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Just a thought, but wouldn't it be more logical to create a single fixicon
>> utility? What I mean is, make it so that wfixicon is compiled to fixicon
>> under windows, bfixicon is compiled to fixicon under BeOS etc.
>> I think this would give a more `platform independant' feel.
>
>The two utilities don't do quite the same: bfixicon must be run on an
>already generated executable whereas wfixicon produces a resource file that
>will be used to build the executable.

I see, thanks for clearing that up.

>Moreover, the big advantage of external utilities over library functions is
>you're not compelled to use dirty tricks to hide the platform specifics and
>come up with a unified interface (e.g the FA_* flags).

I agree. Having seperate utilities for each platform and docs probably
isn't such a pain as I at first thought it would be.

Evert