Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:50:33 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <2593-Thu08Feb2001205033+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <003c01c091c9$951f89e0$fb4b893e@oemcomputer>
	(djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk)
Subject: Re: wctype.h and STLport
References:  <003c01c091c9$951f89e0$fb4b893e AT oemcomputer>
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

> From: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:20:51 -0000
> 
> > Can you describe what bad things happen if we don't add prototypes
> > for those functions to the header?
> 
> It just means that STLport users can't #include <cwctype>, because
> it will always give errors.

Is it possible to explain, without citing too large portions of the
headers, why would a missing prototype fail compilation even if the
application only includes the header?  I'm afraid I don't understand
that, especially since libstdc++ headers don't cause such failures.

> I don't think there is anything else that can be done in DJGPP
> itself.  The DJGPP port of STLport could have a modified cwctype
> to avoid the problem.

That's possible, if no other reasonable solution exists.