Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:18:07 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Gautier <gautier DOT demontmollin AT maths DOT unine DOT ch>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Using Micro$oft libraries in dgpp programs
In-Reply-To: <381EAB15.C58E7C54@maths.unine.ch>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991102111530.20126M-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Gautier wrote:

> In some cases it's better to interface (e.g. for large and specific
> libraries). Sometimes it is worth the effort, as it can increase
> portability to almost all the sources - positive experience
> from Fortran, with same Ada sources used on Compaq AXP, OpenVMS
> and DJGPP-Ada95, DOS !).

Porting a program does not necessarily mean that the ported code must be 
portable.  In many cases, such as the one that started this thread, the 
user is only interested in getting the code to work on a new platform.

Making the program more portable than it already is is an entirely 
different project, and it requires an entirely different perspective and 
different tools.