> Saturday October 14 1995 11:54, you wrote to me:

 > Paul,

 >  PE>  * Forwarded from area 'OS2PROG'

 >  PE> Can you quote a reference on this.  The only reference I know of is
 >  PE> that if a vendor-function pollutes the namespace when compiling in

 > You're right. It's this I was refering to. But won't any function not 
 > defined by the ANSI standard fall under this clause ?

 >  PE> If they want to do that, that's OK, but it still doesn't make the
 >  PE> Borland approach wrong.

 > I didn't say (or at least didn't meant to say) it is wrong, only that MS or 
 > IBMs way of doing it is easier for me.

 >  PE> discussion was not about who has the best posix environment, but
 >  PE> whether there was something wrong with Borland's ISO-compliance claim.

 > Ok, I jumped in late on that thread and seem to have missed the point.

 >  PE> You tried to turn an ISO-conforming compiler into a Posix-conforming
 >  PE> compiler.

 > If I had tried to do that I would have had much more work :) I would have 
 > had to change the library and the header as full posix compliance involves 
 > much more than having open, close etc., as you may know.

 >  PE> of days ago], BCOS2 1.5 doesn't have a fork(), which means they
 >  PE> are not Posix-compliant already.  I very much doubt that Borland
 >  PE> claim to be posix-compliant anyway.

 > The only compiler (or better library) that has fork is the C library of the 
 > emx gcc port. But the documentation strongly advises not to use fork as it 
 > doesn't fit well into OS/2s process model.

 >  PE> can't remember whether or not posix requires open() to be prototyped
 >  PE> in stdio.h,

 > Nope, it doesn't require it. And quite a few other common (unix) functions 
 > don't have a place in std headers. That's why on most unix machines you'll 
 > find the unistd.h that declares things like open(),close(),exec() etc.

 >  PE> #ifdef DO_PROTOTYPES

 >  PE> should not do

 >  PE> #ifdef __STDC__

 >  PE> if they then turn around and start writing non-ISO code

 > Of cause you're right. But tell that to the zillion people writing free 
 > software mostly for the unix world :) But how do you distinguish a K&R 
 > compiler from an ANSI compiler if not by testing for __STDC__ ? And 
 > additionally to the above mentioned, you will want prototypes, standard 
 > headers and in some cases the token pasting capabilities of an ANSI 
 > compiler.

 >  PE> Another *possibility* is that you can go
"-D__STDC__=1" on the
 >  PE> command line compile of Borland to get what you want.

 > Without changing the headers this won't help you in such a case.

 >  PE> him to report it back to the people in the USA in charge of it.  I'm
 >  PE> not sure whether they accepted that change I made or not.

 > Judging from my efforts I'd guess they will ignore such stuff.


 >                                                      Philipp


 > Winter is the season in which people try to keep the house as
 > warm as it was in the summer, when they complained about the
 > heat.

 > --- GoldED/2 2.50+
how come you are writing to me and i have nver heard of you or this meeage??


--- AdeptXBBS v1.05