Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/15/06:16:38
On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Ned Ulbricht wrote:
> 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).
That's not what I meant. MS-Windows compilers (such as MSVC++) do
have ANSI- and POSIX-compatible functions besides console I/O. Many
of these are broken, and I think people should be aware of the related
problems if they plan to be able to port their code to Windows.
> 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?
IMHO, any reasonable effort will wind up listing problems which people
have actually bumped into (otherwise, they won't remember them). If
somebody had a traumatic experience with a Borland header, they will
speak up. Otherwise, there's no issue in not mentioning them.
- Raw text -