From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301051829.AA20468@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DXEs
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:29:49 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <200301051609.h05G9Cd22414@speedy.ludd.luth.se> from "ams@ludd.luth.se" at Jan 05, 2003 05:09:12 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> If .dxe's are becoming as powerful as dynamic libraries, perhaps we
> should rename them .so?

They aren't compatible, so I don't think this would be correct.

What we should do about dynamic libraries in the long term is still
unclear, however.  There are just too many incompatible formats
out there right now.