Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com Message-ID: <35E60FBA.13A94DF9@cartsys.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:02:34 -0700 From: Nate Eldredge MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: George Foot , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Patch to mkdoc and re: portability information References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, George Foot wrote: > If we want to be really fancy, we could enclose the whole @multitable > in a @cartouche (which draws a frame with rounded corners around the > table--in the printed output alone, of course). Which reminds me-- seems to me I once tried to TeX libc.txi and it failed miserably. Has anyone done this successfully? It could easily have been a bad installation on my part, missing fonts or such (it was on a Unix box, and I don't use TeX much). > > The problem is of course that nobody knows about every compiler; if > > possible it would be best to have each function's documentation > > updated by one person, but that's clearly not possible because for > > many functions no one person will know enough about enough compilers > > to be able to add all the information. > > Come on, let's do it the DJGPP way: somebdoy should do the first cut > as best as they can, post the diffs and gather comments from whoever > cares to comment. If we wait for the perfect solution, we will wait > forever. Unless someone else wants to, I can do this as time permits (though I may be somewhat busy for several days). After mkdoc stabilizes a bit, of course. > > Systematically checking whether djgpp's functions > > behave in the same way as their counterparts on other compilers would > > be extremely tedious > > I don't think anybody would expect to have this information. It's too > much. Let's add notes as the experience and user feedback dictate. I agree. -- Nate Eldredge nate AT cartsys DOT com