> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:33:58 +0000 > From: Keith Marshall <keith.d.marsh...@ntlworld.com> > CC: groff@gnu.org > > Out of curiosity, Eli, why did you find it necessary to move > stringclass.h to an earlier position in the include order? Is it not a > symptom of either a flawed design, or an implementation fault, if that > matters? Is there a MinGW issue which may need investigation? Or is it > simply that you've introduced a dependency on stringclass.h within > lib.h? (In which case, would it not have been better to have lib.h > itself include stringclass.h?)
It's IMO a Groff problem that is not specific to MinGW: stringclass.h is not idempotent. I was too lazy to fix that, sorry.
