Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/14/13:02:47
On 13 Feb 98, George Foot wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:
>
> > Also, maybe the header used by a DOS compiler should be in-line with the
> > column entry, instead of a footnote. I assume it will be a common occurence.
>
> Provided the same header is used by all DOS compilers; if not a footnote
> would be more appropriate (and probably necessary anyway).
>
> > Here's my revision of Eli's suggestion:
> >
> > @subheading Portability
> >
> > @multitable {Supported} {ANSI} {POSIX} {Unix} {MS-DOS/MS-Windows}
> > @item @tab ANSI @tab POSIX @tab Unix @tab MS-DOS/MS-Windows
> > @item Supported? @tab no @tab yes @tab yes (1) @tab yes <io.h> (2)
> > @end multitable
> [snip]
>
> I'm wondering whether the `Supported?' bit is necessary, since the table
> only has one (real) row and it should be pretty obvious what `yes' and
> `no' mean in each column. Also I think it's wise to keep tables fairly
> narrow when they're being converted into a markup language, since you
> don't know exactly what they'll look like (margins, page width, etc) on
> the user's screen. This could be particularly relevant for RHIDE users; I
> don't use it myself but I presume its help window is resizable.
[snip]
> @portability
> @brief ansi(no) posix(yes) unix(yes,1) dos(yes,io.h,2)
> @notes
>
> (1) SysV flavor doesn't frobnicate the foobar. BSD does. Many Unix
> systems don't have the prototype declared anywhere (so it's best
> to have an explicit prototype in the program).
>
> (2) Known to be buggy in Borland.
>
> @end portability
Eli suggests MS-DOS/MS-Windows while George suggests just DOS for
column heads. Note that one of the differences is whether the conio
functions are supported (they aren't for native Win3.1 programs
although a DOS box can use them). I would suggest that we ignore
native Windows compatability since anyone using DJGPP for Win
apps needs to have additional Win docs anyhow.
If it weren't for trying to keep the table narrow, I would actually
suggest different columns for MS, Borland and Watcom. If all three
were 'yes' then it would be pretty much ms-dos compatible. We'll
want to keep that info somewhere anyhow, so that we know what's been
compared to which docs. (I'm shutting up about testing). That is
unless we just go with Eli's suggestion that anything MS has is by
definition MS-DOS compatible--but then how would we know that Borland
uses a screwy header file for instance?
Also, I assume that Unix means BSD--are there any differences among
major Unix flavors that will actually make a difference?
BTW Nate, Eli & George: I'm now subscribed to the djgpp-workers
list so there's no longer any need to keep copying me
explicitly--thanks for doing that guys! I'm still copying you three
in addition to the list--let me know if you want to me to stop. (You
can continue to copy me if you want, I just get rid of the
duplicates).
- Raw text -