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