Hi, On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:07:50 +0200 (CEST) Djamel Ouerdane <ouerdane@nbi.dk> wrote concerning "Use Text_t or Char_t ?": > Hi BRATers, > > In a recent email, Christian suggested I removed all references to > Text_t in the classes I wrote so as to use Char_t instead. Flemming wrote a mail, asking why this was important. Well, it's not really except that we should stick to one thing, since you never know if Text_t changes definition relative to Char_t. I believe that Text_t used to be const char, but was later turned into char. Finally, Rene has told me, that Text_t is depreciated by ROOT. > Personnaly, I have no opinion on that at all. But in the previous brat > update, I added brconvnames_old in application/misc that would do the job. > > (I recall that brconvnames_old wil first put the <file> to convert in > <file>.old and rewrite the new thing in <file> > > If you all agree with Christian or you don't care, I or someone can do the > conversion job. Why did you introduce another shell script? We the heck didn't you just add an option to the old shell script? It's no good forking the code like that. If you look in the original script, you'll see loads of examples as to how to use commandline options in the script. It's very easy. If you will/can not do it, I can do it at some point. Anyway, do go ahead doing the transformation. Yours, Christian Holm Christensen ------------------------------------------- Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91 DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 28 82 16 23 Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 305 Email: cholm@nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 07:54:32 EDT