--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We disagree on the room left in between. I think it should remain a
> non Mike-Joe-Hans-Otto-Rand land, he thinks we should offer the means
> to have both includes and inlines. I think it's way too many
> complications, too much documentation to read, too many additional
> means to shoot in the very hand holding the gun :) He thinks that's
> worth it and that anyway it's gonna be simpler than I fear.
>
Thanks for the clarification on this matter. So, the debate isn't to include
or not to include and it isn't to inline or not to inline but it is whether to
have both options.
My choice is for both options.
Cheers,
=====
---
Earnie Boyd: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/>
__Minimalist GNU for Windows__
Mingw32 List: <http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/>
Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
