From: sl AT psycode DOT com DOT NOSPAM (Gili) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: DJGPP - overhaul Date: 8 Jun 1998 06:58:32 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <199806080054 DOT UAA23758 AT delorie DOT com> Reply-To: sl AT psycode DOT com DOT NOSPAM NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.205.118.187 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk While I'm speaking with you about DJGPP... I think DJGPP is way overdue for another overhaul (the kind you go through between a v1 and a v2 release) You have tons over functions doing exactly the same thing for "compability's sake" and you have tons of other features which are not properly documented in libc.inf... First, if you're really concerned about compatibility with other plateforms, provide help for their functions which simple says: "--- This function does not exist in DJGPP, please refer to equivilent functions such as: " You're not doing anyone favours (I don't think, but could be wrong ;)) by making functions in DJGPP for compatibility reasons alone. If there are functions in existance, they should be for the target plateform, all other commands should show up in the help only. Now, about the help ;) The help is nice at first, but for the size of commands supported by DJGPP, I think you definately need an overhaul in the system. Have a more standarized way of writting the help.. I mean, for some functions, the help provides tons of background information, links to related functions, return values, etc. which is GREAT! I'd love for the entire help to be like that.. But for others, all you have is the syntax (which sometimes is actually incorrect) followed by the return value.. Problem is, you never explain what those return values actually mean, or what related functions exist and so on.. Yes, I know *everyone* is full of advice they themselves cannot apply ;) But I was wondering, who is actually in charge of the documentation for DJGPP? If it is you, the author of DJGPP, don't you think you should get a different person to do it for you? It would save everyone a lot of hassle; we'd have a much more complete help system and you'd have more time to concentrate on the actual coding of DJGPP... Anyway, just my 2 cents, Gili