From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Seebach <seebs@monolith.solon.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com>
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: linux libio status 
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:53:00 -0000
Message-id: <199710161537.KAA23731@monolith.solon.com>
References: <u9iuux4tpv.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg00651.html

In message < u9iuux4tpv.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com >, Jason Merrill writes:
>> Isn't that an order of magnitude more complicated than providing
>> <null.h>, and having everything that needs NULL include it?

>Do you also want to provide <size_t.h>, <ptrdiff_t.h>, <wchar_t.h> and
><wint_t.h>?  It doesn't seem excessively complicated to me, since the user
>doesn't have to deal with it and we only have to do it once.

Hmm.  I would have to actually go look up where else each of those is
defined...

In general, I think at least half of it isn't even the namespace, but
just intrinsic distrust of a scheme where one header makes use of a
clearly magic internal of another header... Dangerous magic, that.

(It's probably also mildly inefficient, but on modern machines, who
cares if one compiler is three times as slow as another?)

-s