Message-Id:	<m0yC1M9-000S2kC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:09:58 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: errno constants in <errno.h>
References:	<m0yBzZT-000S2iC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980309182652.1712A-100000@is>

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > It sounds better than having an errno too different than the UNIX one.
> 
> I would definitely NOT change errno.  Too many programs say things like 
> "if (errno == EEXIST)" etc.
> 
> > And  perhaps (if no so much overhead is involved) we can even have both 
> > errno styles selectable through some variable.
> 
> Is there really a need for this option?  If we have both errno and
> _dos_errno, an application could test both of them if it needs. 
> Portability (both to Posix and DOS compilers) is served well by having
> both of these separate. 
 
Yes, but a program designed to be compiled on both: DOS/UNIX can't get any 
direct advantage. The program must have your own code to solve it, that's all.

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -