Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:02:41 -0700 From: Bill Currie Subject: Re: Possible misbehavior of write To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Reply-to: billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz Message-id: <33AB0C11.208D@blackmagic.tait.co.nz> Organization: Tait Electronics NZ MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <9706200301 DOT AA13408 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Precedence: bulk Charles Sandmann wrote: > I have no preferences about what the macro/routine does, but it does make > it easy to change the behavior globally with a single change. I'm not > completely convinced it's one of those changes worth the effort, but if > we make the effort we might as well design for maintainability and > flexibility. Very true. If it's done, it might as well be done properly. > Could be. Could be anything. If it's a function then you have the > call overhead, but you can replace the function easily for personal > preference without a library re-compile. Forgot about that angle at the time. > I would not distribute multiple libraries. As DJ pointed out, we've gone > a couple of years now before this came up, so it can't be too important... > If someone needs it, recompile the library. My 2 cents... I agree. In fact, I'm not convinced it's worth it. There's a LOT of functions to change (fortunatly mostly copy,paste,paste...) and I don't want to do it (or even want to have the feature, realy). I rather like getting page/seg faults when I goof, kindof sets off an H-bomb where the bug is;) Bill -- Leave others their otherness.