"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 3/7/2013 7:09 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote: >> Good, but does the code still increase the difficulty in porting? > > I don't understand your question. >
Does the presence of support for eg. linking OS2 executables make the codebase harder to understand? > >> And even once it's in C, optlink will probably never be more than a >> win32/omf linker. > > That's correct. However, it'll be much more maintainable, I don't know how much redesign you're planning, but I can't imagine it ever being as maintainable as a pure d codebase. A less stable/complete linker that attracts more contributors should overtake a more stable linker with only a couple of developers that grok it. > and it'll be a gold mine of information about linker trivia on how to do > things with obscure/undocumented/bizarre file formats. > What is the license on optlink? Can other linkers actually use this information?
