Ben Pfaff wrote:
> now I can use both headers at once, which is what I wanted.
huh? Nothing has been committed to that effect. I only renamed pathname.h
to filename.h, since that was Paul's objection.
To get rid of the macro redefinition warnings, you still need to negotiate
with Jim and me.
Bru
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Here is my attempt at a minimally invasive resolution of the
>> differences
>
> This is backwards. You introduce a dependency from a simple module to a
> complicated module. The purpose of 'filename' (ex-'pathname') is to do
> the most
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Well, if you want my biased opinion, pathname should go. :-)
> >
> > The GNU Coding Standards say that one shouldn't use the word
> > "pathname" to describe file names.
If that is your only argument, I can rename this module to 'filename'.
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Here is my att
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> pathname.h and dirname.h define macros with the same names, but
>> conflicting definitions. Should they be merged?
>
> Well, if you want my biased opinion, pathname should go. :-)
>
> The GNU Coding Standards sa
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pathname.h and dirname.h define macros with the same names, but
> conflicting definitions. Should they be merged?
Well, if you want my biased opinion, pathname should go. :-)
The GNU Coding Standards say that one shouldn't use the word
"pathname" to desc
