Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199808270122.VAA24722@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: nate AT cartsys DOT com
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <35E43C36.FE7E2EBC@cartsys.com> (message from Nate Eldredge on
	Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:47:50 -0700)
Subject: Re: Patch to mkdoc and re: portability information
Precedence: bulk


> The case that I'm wondering about are the non-DOS-specific functions. 
> For example, suppose somebody wants to use `stat' in a program which
> they plan to port to Borland C.  They will want information on `stat's
> portability to other DOS compilers.

If Borland and MSC do the same thing with stat(), and djgpp does
something different, it should be noted.  The note can simply say "way
different, read the docs" if needed.

> Am I misunderstanding you?  It sounds vaguely like you're talking about

When you're documenting a difference, it doesn't matter which way you
look at it.  So, we're documenting both portability from djgpp to
other compilers, and portability from other compilers.  I just want to
make sure that "dos" is as specific as we get.  We either do the
"usual" thing, or we don't.  IMHO, it's a portability concern if the
other compilers agree about what the "usual" thing is and djgpp does
something different.