Jonathan Stowe:
# On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
# > Jonathan Stowe:
# > # This shuts up the implicit declaration warning in test_main.c :
# > #
# > # --- config_h.in~ Fri Feb 1 07:39:42 2002
# > # +++ config_h.in Fri Feb 1 07:40:06 2002
# > # @@ -51,9 +51,10 @@
# > # #define INTVAL_FMT "${intvalfmt}"
# > # #define FLOATVAL_FMT "${floatvalfmt}"
# > #
# > # +#endif
# > # +
# > # ${headers}
# > #
# > # -#endif
# >
# > This (part of the) patch is a Really Bad Idea.
# >
# > While it clears up a warning, it severely pollutes the
# namespace of any
# > program that embeds Parrot. Not just test_main.c, but perl_main.c,
# > python_main.c, ruby_main.c, scheme_main.c, and
# > some_random_program_that_uses_parrot_on_the_inside_main.c. True,
# > HAS_HEADER_FOOs probably aren't something that will differ between
# > programs, but it still is a pollution that simply shouldn't
# be there.
# >
#
# OK, got you. Would it be better then if test_main.c had its
# own config.h,
# which is likely to be the case if it was a real language front end ?
I don't think so. My suggestion is to just pre-declare whatever
functions it uses from stdlib.h. The ANSI C standard says that should
work just as well.
Also, I seem to remember hearing that there are six headers that MUST
exist in all ANSI C implementations. You may want to check if this is
one of them.
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Parrot Configure pumpking and regex hacker
Check out the Parrot FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~ziggy/parrot.html (no,
it's not mine)
<obra> mmmm. hawt sysadmin chx0rs
<lathos> This is sad. I know of *a* hawt sysamin chx0r.
<obra> I know more than a few.
<lathos> obra: There are two? Are you sure it's not the same one?
