Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199802130640.WAA14589@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
From: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
Cc: eliz <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, Ned Ulbricht <nedu AT ee DOT washington DOT edu>,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 05:13  2/13/1998 +0000, 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).
True. Eli's comments lead me to believe that DOS compilers will be similar
in that respect; apparently they all conform to Micro$oft C.
>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. 
Good point. I agree.

>That's true of course; it would be perfectly possible to just make
>separate files.  Note that some (many?) of the .txh files contain more
>than on function's documentation, though, and I think it would be better
>aesthetically for the portability section to come before any examples.
>All in all, it'll need a little work to merge in the separate bits and
>pieces.
Ah, I forgot all about those points. Context diffs probably are the way to
go then.

>If we sort out the macros versatilely fairly soon (not setting their
>definitions in stone, just defining what they'll be) then people can start
>work.  I'd suggest something if I had any idea how the macros for mkdoc
>work; perhaps something like:
[snipped]
I don't know about them either. In fact I can't find any evidence of a macro
feature in `mkdoc'. It may be that DJ is proposing we add it, in which case
the macros can look any way we want. I've asked him about this.

Thinking some more, the macro idea seems to be the way to go. It's short to
write, the expansion is easily changed, etc. I'm not sure why I didn't
realize that at once. ~:)

>ko tavla fo la lojban
All right, I give up. What does this mean? :)

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net