Paul Eggert wrote:
>Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem I'm worried about is older
>hosts where defines MIN, and where also
>collides with other random include files. If minmax.h has the
> stuff in it, it will be more likely to cause problems in
>files that include it but not .
>
>(Thoug
Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe, when I'm looking at only one file, but I think it takes a little
> extra brain power worrying when to and not to include minmax.h.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem I'm worried about is older
hosts where defines MIN, and where also
colli
I'd say it's so desirable that it should be the default behavior.
I stopped short of suggesting that because I think the verbose output is
actually very useful when people are first starting to use gnulib. At
least, I found it very useful :).
However, I won't stand in the way if others feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert wrote:
>This is one case where it may be simpler just to leave things alone
>and avoid the extra dependencies. The mental complexity of figuring
>out what '#include "minmax.h"' does is about the same as the mental
>complexity of reading "#
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> I was just wondering, would it be feasible/desirable to have an option
> (--changes a la chmod?) to gnulib-tool so that it only reports files
> actually created or changed?
I'd say it's so desirable that it should be the default behavior.
___
I was just wondering, would it be feasible/desirable to have an option
(--changes a la chmod?) to gnulib-tool so that it only reports files
actually created or changed?
I just added a single getopt module (getopt, plus its dependency
gettext) to Hello. It went well, easier than I had feared (than
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 12:46 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 19/05/2005 11:18, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 10:47 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> >
> >>On 18/05/2005 19:29, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> >>>It is not. The point was that the interface allow the user to specify a
> >
On 19/05/2005 11:18, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 10:47 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
On 18/05/2005 19:29, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
It is not. The point was that the interface allow the user to specify a
callback for freeing the data, and thus the pointer to theses data
should no
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 10:47 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 18/05/2005 19:29, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 16:16 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> >
> >>On 17/05/2005 10:20, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> >>
> >>>However, I still consider this version of the patch to be a hack, when
On 18/05/2005 19:29, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 16:16 +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
On 17/05/2005 10:20, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
However, I still consider this version of the patch to be a hack, when
the real bug here is that you should not use const since you permit the
user
This is one case where it may be simpler just to leave things alone
and avoid the extra dependencies. The mental complexity of figuring
out what '#include "minmax.h"' does is about the same as the mental
complexity of reading "#define MIN(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))".
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
