"John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The quick patch that I can do is to move where the #undef of the
> _GL_JUST_INCLUDE_SYSTEM_DIRECTORY_H is.
Yes, thanks, that sounds like a reasonable fix. I installed the patch
below: does it work for you?
> The long term fix to avoid this would
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you know / can you imagine another convention that can be used
> to denote a function or macro name as a symbol? Like we use <...>
> for URLs or system header files, upper case to denote a variable in
> plain text (in place of ...), *..
The size of your patch - more than 300 KB - makes me think that perhaps
something is wrong with this part of the GNU standards.
If you want to ask rms about it, feel free.
Do you know / can you imagine another convention that can be used
to denote a function or macro name as a sy
Hi Paul,
The size of your patch - more than 300 KB - makes me think that perhaps
something is wrong with this part of the GNU standards. Yes, it is formally
incorrect to write foo() when foo takes more than 0 arguments. But it is
a convention that is firmly rooted in Unix tradition.
Anyway, I see
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
>
>> rms just requested that we remove the empty parentheses after function
>> names on, e.g., http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/MODULES.html. He
>> refers to the "GNU Manuals" node of standards.texi,
>
> Here's a fir
