> John Gardner <gardnerjo...@gmail.com> hat am 14. Februar 2019 um 14:20
> geschrieben:
>
>
> > but there's also no great urgency to remove them, IMO
>
> Agreed. Personally, I think this is a non-issue.
>
> If Groff still uses backticks to support the (pre-POSIX) ancient Bourne
> Shell for Solaris 9-10, then we may as well remove those too if we're
> "modernising" the codebase...
+1
re,
wh
>
> (I use "modernise" in this sense very loosely)
>
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:17, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Just to make what Keith says (and I concur) crystal clear: there's a
> > > need to distinguish between C99 compliance of the compiler and the
> > > C99/Posix compliance of the C runtime. We can assume the former,
> > > certainly when using MinGW GCC, but we cannot assume the latter when
> > > building a native MS-Windows port (as opposed to Cygwin port) of
> > > Groff.
> >
> > If it's just the runtime, then Gnulib should be able to paper over a
> > pretty fair number of the differences, and groff already uses that. It
> > may just be a matter of somebody who can do test-builds on Windows
> > making sure that we're importing the right set of Gnulib modules.
> >
> > (It's possible that some of the _WIN32 conditionals can be supplied by
> > Gnulib these days, but there's also no great urgency to remove them,
> > IMO.)
> >
> > --
> > Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
> >
> >
