In your message of 27 March 2000 you write:
> The flaw with option (a) is that no such compile-time protection exists, and
> a developer might inadvertently ship a binary which uses static extension
> entry points.
>
> I'm surprised that (a) has garnered as much support in the early voting as
> it has, since I expect that (b) would be acceptable to anyone who hates (c),
> e.g. Steve. My choices, ranked in order of preference, are c, b, a.
You are right that (a) is flawed, but it is still better than (c). (c)
is from a portability point of view so seriously flawed, that it's
pretty much a killer for this ABI, as pretty much no existing program
that uses extensions will with it without source changes. I would much
rather vote for (b), as it makes more sence, but given the current
votes, I'd much rather avoid the nightmare of (c) at any cost.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Roell /\ An imperfect plan executed violently
Xi Graphics / \/\ _ is far superior to a perfect plan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / / \ \
/ Oelch! \ \ George Patton
