delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Message-Id: | <200007011223.PAA02128@mailgw1.netvision.net.il> |
Date: | Sat, 01 Jul 2000 15:24:00 +0200 |
To: | Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> |
X-Mailer: | Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <395DB7FA.56B0ABB3@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard |
Dawe on Sat, 01 Jul 2000 10:20:58 +0100) | |
Subject: | Re: Confusing portability statements in libc reference? |
References: | <395DB7FA DOT 56B0ABB3 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> |
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 |
> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 10:20:58 +0100 > From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> > > not ANSI, POSIX > > My first thought was that this was neither ANSI nor POSIX, but it is > POSIX. This could be confusing. I think that the portability info produced > should be either: > > 1. sorted to group all nots onto one line & all "yes" cases on another > line; > 2. split across multiple lines (one case/lines); > 3. separated by semi-colons. > > Could anyone else be confused by this, or is it just me? ;) You are the first one to complain ;-). However, the original intent was to produce a @multitable from @portability, since this information is really a table where the first row enumerates all the standards, and the second row says YES or NO. We stopped short of that because the then-current version of texi2html didn't support @multitable (DJ uses texi2html to produce the on-line version of the docs accessible from www.delorie.com/djgpp/docs/). I think texi2html does support @multitable now, so this could be changed for the next version of DJGPP. Any takers?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |