> At 9:21 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:> > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure >> and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ >> defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. > >Some defines have the HAVE_ prefix. Should those be also prefixed?
If they're being set in our configure stuff, yes.
If we add PARROT_ to HAVE_, we will end up with the PARROT_HAVE_ prefix, what IMHO is harsh. It might be alot better if we firstly had changed HAVE_ for HAS_. What do you think?
It is grammatically obnoxious, isn't it? PARROT_HAS_STDIO_H is fine, so if you want to make that change everywhere, go for it.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
