Message-ID: <3949EEAF.E736F50B@softhome.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:09:03 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000615113540 DOT 11632V-100000 AT is> <3948E86E DOT E28D1AE8 AT softhome DOT net> <200006151855 DOT VAA06521 AT mailgw1 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il> <394936FA DOT 392AAB79 AT softhome DOT net> <200006160747 DOT KAA21364 AT alpha DOT netvision DOT net DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> This issue really is (will be) relevant in wgetc and other
> wide-character I/O functions which we currently don't have.  If EOF is
> not supposed to be converted into WEOF, then perhaps there's no
> problem.

EOF is outside of normal character space, and WEOF is outside of
wide char space. And all those functions deal with characters.
So IMHO _no special handling is required_. About getwc() - it is
internal implementation issue. Why can't it just set result to WEOF
when it gets EOF from somewhere else?

> I'm just worried that we are making decisions based on code that was
> not yet written (the wide-character support), and which it might be
> difficult to revert later.  Perhaps we should leave wint_t alone, for
> the moment.

If the change could be easy made now, it could be easy reverted when
we start writing actual code. So IMHO there is nothing wrong changing
it now.

Laurynas