single vs. multi-sexp modules Alex Shinn (13 Jan 2006 08:25 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Per Bothner (14 Jan 2006 03:01 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules bear (15 Jan 2006 17:25 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Alex Shinn (16 Jan 2006 02:05 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Jim Blandy (16 Jan 2006 06:13 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Tony Garnock-Jones (16 Jan 2006 11:45 UTC)
Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Alex Shinn (20 Jan 2006 03:08 UTC)

Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules Tony Garnock-Jones 16 Jan 2006 11:44 UTC

Jim Blandy wrote:
> In other words, [the C standard] leaves it entirely implementation-defined how the
> header names are interpreted, and where the referenced files are
> stored.

For instance, on an old, very strict ANSI C compiler for RISC OS, if you
had a globals.h and a main.c, you'd structure your project with one "h"
directory containing a file named "globals", and one "c" directory
containing a file named "main", because "." is the directory separator
on RISC OS! (Porting to that compiler was an enormous pain in the
proverbial.)

Tony