"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> Use what you have, and when the new version is available you can switch
> to that. It sounds like what you have done is largely user-compatible
> what I'm doing.
>
Sounds okay. What are you doing btw? ;)
> As for an internal implementation, I think this is essentially
> impossible. It would require that you understand the internal format of
> FILE* on every single platform, which is basically impossible in any way
> that approaches portability, and even if that were possible all the
> functions that use FILE* would have to be compatible with a memory
> stream implementation, which seems just as unlikely.
>
Yes, FILE* is a handle I see that. On second thought an internal
implementation seems to me very messy indeed. Perhaps you could redefine
FILE* to be a wrapper around the real handle but... I can't imagine
how kludgey that would be
> eo> Alternatively, read.c might be rewritten to abstract all buffer/stream
> eo> ops. I've written some compilers before, so I guess I might do that
> eo> too ;) But I don't know if it would be smaller than the first solution.
> eo> I'd say smaller is better.
>
> Smaller is better, all things being equal. But portable is far and away
> more important than smaller. They're not even in the same ballpark.
>
Yes, this portability game is really hard to grasp at times. Then it
seems that in order to do what I say, you have to go the second route.
Shall I give it a shot?
Cheers,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
