Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:05:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch to mkdoc and re: portability information
In-Reply-To: <199808251741.NAA10295@delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980827140450.6326H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, DJ Delorie wrote:

> No, "dos" means it does what you'd expect a dos compiler to do, and
> most dos compilers hook right into the dos interrupts.

Even if this is true, I still think there's a place to tell the user
whether a certain function exists on most DOS compilers.  Since DOS
compilers (except DJGPP) don't claim Posix compliance, functions that
are compatible to Posix and Unix might or might not be supported by
other DOS compilers.  Examples are `stat', `access', `gethostname',
`sigprocmask', `strdup' and many others.

Why is it important for the user to know whether a function goes
directly to DOS, anyway?

> Perhaps a small section at the beginning talking about portability,

How about adding the explanation to the "Introduction" node?