Message-Id: <200011132140.QAA10421@qnx.com> Subject: Re: Summary of the snprintf() situation To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Alain Magloire" In-Reply-To: <14ED3AD53387@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> from "Juan Manuel Guerrero" at Nov 13, 2000 09:59:47 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > > Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:14:00 +0000 > From: Richard Dawe > > [snip] > > I guess that they are under a BSD-style licence? I don't think they could > > be incorporated into DJGPP for this reason. > [snip] > It seems that the message has generated more confusion than enlightment. > Please note that it was **never** my intention to suggest this code for DJGPP inclusion. > > > >This is an example of what a package may expect that snprintf() and > > >vsnprintf() definitions looks like. > > > > Thanks, they have the same prototypes as Alain's implementation. > [snip] > That is the important thing. > The goal was to call your attention to this package with its own definitions > of {v},snprintf() functions. > > Once again, it was *never* my intention to suggest to drop Alain's implementation and > to start using this code. The patch should only show what this particular package expects. Maybe I should clarify some points too ;-) Hmm, it's not __my__ implementation. Eli worked on this, actually if it has to be someone's implementation, I would suggest Rich, he did more of the sweating and the brain overheating. Ok 'nough said. Later, -- au revoir, alain ---- Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on n'est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!