Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:36:36AM -0500, John Weiss wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> >
>> > I feel we are beginning on a slippery slope now... ok to support
>> > windows if only minimal changes are needed... but now we see more and
>> > more changes needed to support this.
>> >
>> > I am not sure that I am really happy about this "progress"
>>
>> Nor should you be.
>>
>> Doing true full-Windows support in an inherently-unix program is a
>> very thorny, messy situation.
>
| There are at least two points to be consider.
>
| First of all, it seems to bring back Asger into the boat.
>
| Secondly, having the thing compile _also_ in Visual Studio is nice, as
| hunting down certain bugs is much more fun when you do not have to wait
| several minutes for a link to finish.
>
| I don't see any particular strong reason to dislike either.
Depends. (especially the first point :-) )
Sure it is nice to compile on more than one compiler... but if the
result is muddier code then I am not sure about the gain. (and not
that I have not said that this is the case, just a thing to watch out
for. and we already see quite a bit of preprocessors tokens entering
code...)
--
Lgb
