Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:18:28 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: "Mark E." cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: wctype.h and ctype.h In-Reply-To: <199905181753.RAA20958@out5.ibm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 May 1999, Mark E. wrote: > > The question is: why did whoever created wctype.h need to include > > ctype.ha in it? Does Addendum 1 say something that implies that > > including wctype.h pulls in the definitions of is* functions? > > I'm the guilty one. I had that include in so later I could use it > for the isw* equivalents of the is* functions in ctype.h. Why couldn't you simply include ctype.h in the same place where you use its macros? > But the include can be removed since none of this is implemented yet. Will do. Btw, I'm a bit uneasy about including incomplete headers in the distribution. The problem is that some packages which auto-configure themselves test for a header and expect ALL of its standard functions to be present if the header is available. Granted, that's wrong (they should test for the functions instead), but that's life. We already had such problems with the Unix part of sys/ioctl.h, and lately with gnu-regex.c in the GDB distribution. So, in general, I think we should have at least a trivial implementation of all the functions described in the Addendum to be added ASAP to wctype.h and wchar.h. I don't think this *must* be done before v2.03 is released, but I'd surely feel better if someone would come up with some minimal code.