On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Kevin Ryde wrote: > Hugh Sasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Kevin Ryde wrote: > > > >> Otherwise if you think there's a function but no prototype we could > >> put a prototype in (when not otherwise provided). > > > > that sounds like the best approach to me. There is a definition to > > be picked up when one is not available, so this seems sensible. > > What would work? Just > > int isnan (double); > > In c99 it's a macro that adapts to the size of the input, but I'd > expect a function version to take a double.
I'll have a look at that. With all the macro stuff it's difficult to know where to insert this. > > > I still haven't found a good source of info for C99. The K&R book > > was updated for ANSI C but not C99 yet. > > There's a draft standard kicking around the net, google for "n869", or > check > > http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/ > > Not tremendously helpful as such though. Thanks, I'll add that link to my C information in due course. > > > I have spent two weeks updating GNU stuff. This insistance on > > the absolute latest versions of everything for a build is immensely > > frustrating. > > For a build it's not meant to be necessary. For developers though Well, I bit the bullet and built Autoconf-2.61. It didn't make any difference. > there's no virtue in bugwards compatibility to old bits. That rather depends on for whom they are developing. Aguments in "Brave Gnu World" about software use in the third world where download speeds are still limited, and http://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.html "free software is more reliable" aren't helped by making the software brittle in this manner. It seems that the GNU coding standards are silent about this aspect of development. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/index.html Hugh > _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
