Re: Overloading vs. string functions, etc.

[Stephen M. Webb <stephen at bregmasoft dot com>]

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Right. How are those c_legacy headers coming? How important is that 
> includes/Makefile.am patch to getting that work done? 

Er, they're coming slow (a million excuses, mumble mumble).

It looks like they, or working shadow headers, might be desireable for the 3.0
release if the c_std stuff just won't work.  I had been using the c_std headers
for production code for some time without any problems, but that was with
the 2.95.2 compiler and not much legacy code so it may not be a representative
sample.  I just assumed the correct headers would be for some unnamed future
release.

I can certainly expedite things a little.  I can't give you a firm date yet,
not until my initial experiments get results (as in, compile and run).

The includes/Makefile.am stuff isn't strictly necessary, since I could work out
how to get built headers built and installed through the old configury, but I'm
using the patch here because it makes things easier to work with and allows me
to concentrate on the headers instead of the infrastructure.  If (when) I get
the headers working I will worry about how to get them integrated with the
build.

In brief, that patch is not a hold up for my development efforts at this time.

-- 

Stephen M. Webb
stephen at bregmasoft dot com