Huw D M Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well for _fullpath I really don't see the problem of adding our own
stdlib.h with include_next stdlib.h and the additional declarations.
Then there are 3 stdlib.h to choose from (the Windows one, the Unix
one, and the include_next one). It seems to add
Patrik Stridvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is a little confusion yes, but perhaps that is the price we must pay.
For what? for having _fullpath declared in stdlib.h? is it really
that important?
As a sidenote I have often wondered whether perhaps it would
be better to implement
Patrik Stridvall psÉleissner.se writes:
It is a little confusion yes, but perhaps that is the price
we must pay.
For what? for having _fullpath declared in stdlib.h?
Aproximately yes.
is it really
that important?
It is not imporant but it would be nice, but you are probably right
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[...]
The problem with this solution is that it ius "permanenting" the
problem.
[...]
There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I proposed is
strictly a technical replacement to the use of the 'include_next'
statement (for the files
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[...]
The problem with this solution is that it ius "permanenting" the
problem.
[...]
There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I proposed is
strictly a technical replacement to the use of the 'include_next'
statement (for the
This problem, the C library compatibility problem, is an
important problem. It is currently the number one reason why
examples in
the 'Programming Windows 95' book don't compile.
That is not very suprising.
I won't really tackle the issue now but I think there is a way
to
