On Wednesday 28 December 2005 14:49, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 December 2005 19:35, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure why we should be specifying the number of bits of a
> > >> configuration type.
> > >
> > >Because it is the only sane way to store data in a machine-independant
> > > type (without using text)?
> >
> > We use text and the only place we don't (sycoca) is machine-dependant.
>
> Was the whole KConfig stuff not supposed to independant on what is below?
> So you could not always assume that it is text below.

Exactly. If someone implements something different for Windows/OSX or 
implemtents one of the other config systems listed on the kde wiki, who knows 
what the underlying implementation will be.

Regards,
Thomas