Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:57:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
Reply-To: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: Ned Ulbricht <nedu AT ee DOT washington DOT edu>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
In-Reply-To: <199802120156.UAA17898@delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980212050351.31947B-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, DJ Delorie wrote:

> Since we parse the txi files anyway, we can use macros to denote
> compatibility and turn them into texinfo when we run mkdoc.  This
> would make maintenance a lot easier and keep the texts consistent.

I think that sounds very sensible.  A TeXpert could write the macros, then
less able volunteers can add the macros in the appropriate places. 

If we go ahead with the more in-depth information about exactly what some
other compilers don't support then there will need to be a [small] generic
information section too.  It might be better to simply point out partial
portability (as in your ~posix macro), and let users check the other
compilers' documentation themselves where necessary. 


> > I suggest we take the alphabetical listing and divide it up between the
> > volunteers.  Each volunteer can add the basic information for each
> 
> How about by source directory instead?  That's easier to work with in
> the source tree, which is where the txi files are.

Very true.  Presumably this could also remove the need to scan some
headers (since for instance everything under `ansi' is ANSI, right?). 

-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk