Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:55:43 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: putc_unlocked in stdio.h but not in libs (1.3.11-3) Message-ID: <20020703165543.GL24177@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3D23221E DOT 4090105 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020703163918 DOT 39013 DOT qmail AT web21007 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020703163918.39013.qmail@web21007.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >> Dunno about this... > >I tend to agree with Conrad on this point. Let's not be blinded by >paranoia... Change is good! Generalizations are bad! Every time we add a new export we break backwards compatibility with programs that are built with the new DLL. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it certainly means that we have to consider whether the addition of a new function is "worth it" or not. I, personally, do not have the time to be constantly scanning the newlib mailing list for new functions which have been added. Also, it is really a configuration bug if a program tries to use a function that doesn't exist in the library. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/