delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/27/00:06:07

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:05:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802270505.AAA23577@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980226040722.30284D-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
(message from George Foot on Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:44:47 +0000 (GMT))
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs

> > The only other ones I can think of that we might need are "dos", "unix", and
> > perhaps "windows".
> 
> Yes.  I just put in ANSI and POSIX because they're the simplest to do on
> the first pass.

ansi and posix are definite.  I think "dos" doesn't make sense; it's
not a compiler.  "unix" is too vague, and ansi/posix should cover it.
"windows" is also not a compiler.  I'd recommend ansi, posix, and
maybe bc and msc, potentially with a digit after to indicate a version
number (i.e. msc7 or bc3).  After all, they're the most popular
platforms people will be interested in being portable to.  Maybe add
cygwin?

> > IMHO, functions that don't mention a target should just not mention it.
> [snip]
> 
> That conflicts with the proposed tabular format -- all the columns would
> (presumably) exist in each function's documentation, so those not
> explicitly mentioned would implicitly be documented as "no"s.  I may have
> misunderstood here though -- we can of course make the table only contain
> columns for mentioned targets.

If a target isn't mentioned, put "?" or "unknown", or omit that column
in the table (after all, we only have one function per table!).

> The "!dos" sounds sensible, yes -- this can be added easily.

Unfortunately, this means that every function needs to list every
compiler we support.  Don't know if that's better than assuming
unlisted means unsupported.

> > Yeah, that should be fine, because we can even do:
> > 
> > @port-note dos This note about portability to Borland is very very long and
> > @port-note dos doesn't fit on a single line.
> 
> That's relying on the way the output is formatted.  If @port-note simply
> writes the following:

mkdoc should combine port-note's with the same keyword, in the order
they're given, into a single note.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019