[llvm] r187874 - Add support for linking against a curses library when available and

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:44 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>wrote:

> Hey Chandler,
>
> Apologies if I've come across strong (it was late when I wrote my last
> reply), but I don't understand why you feel it necessary to remove the old
> code as a fallback codepath in the case where curses is not compiled in.
>

Just to try to close the loop, I wanted to relay a bit of conversation from
IRC on this subject.

James had missed the email I sent in reply to Chris which outlined why I
feel the old fallback mechanism should be changed. I think not having that
email led to at least some of the back-and-forth here. He seemed to
indicate on IRC that he wasn't 100% happy, but at least understood some of
the reasoning.

James, please jump in if I've misrepresented anything, and let me know if
you have further questions or can expand on why you think my reasoning
about the fallback method is flawed or doesn't hold up.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130812/ab8aef29/attachment.html>