Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <3592CDA4.E4C13186@cartsys.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:22:28 -0700
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DJGPP v2.01 malloc wasting 4Kb
References: <199806250322 DOT EAA00310 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

George Foot wrote:
> 
> On 24 Jun 98 at 13:17, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> 
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > For example, what's with the portability-related addition to the
> > > docs?
> >
> > Umm.  That kind of stalled, but I'm looking at getting it moving
> > again. I believe George had made a better patch to `mkdoc' for the
> > macros.  I sent him a mail asking for it; he hasn't responded yet.
> > After that, assuming we can resolve the burning philosophical and
> > syntactical issues that bogged it down before, work can start.  I
> > should have a fair amount of time to work on it. --
> 
> Sorry, I don't remember receiving that email. IIRC, we were in some
> disagreement about whether it was better to use macros in mkdoc or
> macros in Texinfo.  If we decide to use mkdoc, I'll check the
> archives to see where we got to and make sure my copy does do what
> it should, then send patches.  I think some of the concepts in the
> "better patch" were rejected, so I'll change them first.

I think the problem with Texinfo was that its macros aren't supported if
you're TeXing the file for printing.  That leaves `mkdoc'.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com