Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:10:44 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Michael Allison <michael DOT allison2 AT sympatico DOT ca>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>,
        wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl
Subject: Re: ODP: Win2K/XP fixes - implementation review
In-Reply-To: <0c4501c12fb5$b62b6d90$9577d1d8@mnrpbapc0800>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010828150759.3934C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Michael Allison wrote:

> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
> > I agree that it's better to test for the presence of bugs directly,
> > but this could lead to many tests and many flag variables which tell
> > what bugs are present.  If we can lump the bugs in a couple of
> > categories, I think it's okay; otherwise, lets stay with version test.
> 
> You could get away with a single flag variable and still accommodate
> up to 32 specific bugs.

I'm not worried about bloating the programs with lots of variables.  I'm 
worried about the need to maintain dozens of flags each one of which 
tells something about some obscure bug.  ("Hmm, is the IOCTL-on-LFN-
handles-bug flag for devices or only for redirected files on handle 
zero?")