Date:	Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:46:58 -0400
Message-Id:	<200006051546.LAA31185@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<393BB043.75C23C6D@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis
	on Mon, 05 Jun 2000 16:50:59 +0300)
Subject:	Re: ANSI C and stdio.h
References:	<3937DEA9 DOT 63606B27 AT softhome DOT net>
	<200006021918 DOT PAA03693 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <393BB779 DOT DDA55FEC AT cyberoptics DOT com> <393BB043 DOT 75C23C6D AT softhome DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> That's exactly the point I want to prove. Making that kind of code
> 'just work' does not minimize FAQs, it just replaces one FAQs with
> others.

History has shown that there are more clueless users than pedants.

> > gratuitously break existing code if we don't have to.
> 
> And what would mean that 'we have to'?

If you can demonstrate a standards-conforming program that the average
user would be expected to produce that doesn't work with djgpp's
headers, we'll fix it.  I know we can come up with hand-crafted
programs that demonstrate non-conformity.  I'm not interested in
those, because common sense should prevail in the rare esoteric cases.

- Raw text -