Paul Eggert wrote: > I'm a bit dubious about this one, as it adds to the .h maintenance > burden and I'm not sure the benefit is worth the cost. > ... > The other parts I'm ambivalent about.
So let's drop the idea. I was hesitating too. > For the special case of nanosleep, one might want nanosleep declared > even if the nanosleep module isn't being used, for the benefit of > hosts that define nanosleep but don't declare it. Huh? If the program uses nanosleep(), it needs the gnulib module, for those hosts that don't have the function at all. > Also, in the future, I'm leaning towards modifying gnulib so that > nanosleep and struct timespec are declared by <time.h> instead of > having a special timespec.h include file. This is more compatible > with POSIX and would be simpler for programs to use. Yes, I agree this is the approach to follow. We just did the same thing successfully with <wctype.h> and <dirent.h>. Bruno
