Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:02:41 -0700
From:	Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject:	Re: Possible misbehavior of write
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Reply-to:	billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz
Message-id:	<33AB0C11.208D@blackmagic.tait.co.nz>
Organization:	Tait Electronics NZ
MIME-version:	1.0
References:	<9706200301 DOT AA13408 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>

Charles Sandmann wrote:
> I have no preferences about what the macro/routine does, but it does make
> it easy to change the behavior globally with a single change.  I'm not
> completely convinced it's one of those changes worth the effort, but if
> we make the effort we might as well design for maintainability and
> flexibility.

Very true. If it's done, it might as well be done properly.

> Could be.  Could be anything.  If it's a function then you have the
> call overhead, but you can replace the function easily for personal
> preference without a library re-compile.

Forgot about that angle at the time.

> I would not distribute multiple libraries.  As DJ pointed out, we've gone
> a couple of years now before this came up, so it can't be too important...
> If someone needs it, recompile the library.  My 2 cents...

I agree. In fact, I'm not convinced it's worth it.  There's a LOT of
functions to change (fortunatly mostly copy,paste,paste...) and I don't
want to do it (or even want to have the feature, realy).  I rather like
getting page/seg faults when I goof, kindof sets off an H-bomb where the
bug is;)

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness.

- Raw text -