Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: .exports not renamed w/ CMake Windows build

[Kon Lovett]

On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
<snip>
> I'm asking whether lumping all these under one name is a basic  
> error of Chicken's design.  What do Chicken programs do when ported  
> from Unix to Windows?  Just gratuitously fail, looking for exports  
> that aren't there?  I'll wager that historically, programs haven't  
> been ported from Unix to Windows very often, so the issue hasn't  
> come up.
>
> I see at least 2 correct philosophies for dealing with this:
>
> 1) keep the .exports different.  Make the programmer deal with  
> whether they're using posixunix, posixwin, pcre, pregexp, or  
> regexunix.
>
> 2) make the .exports identical in content, and create stub  
> functions for whatever's missing, perhaps giving a diagnostic  
> error.  That way when the program dies, at least the user knows why.
>
> In reaction to this, you might say, "Well I just want it to be (use  
> posix) and (use regex).  I don't want to type anything new /  
> different than what's in the manual, I just want it to work."  But  
> it isn't going to work.  At least not generally speaking; it only  
> works if you happen to use a supported subset.  I am saying, the  
> programmer has to deal with the available functions somewhere,  
> somehow, if the program is to be well-behaved.

Yes. Use the supported subset. Use #+windows/#+unix otherwise.

The design flaw would be separate code for each platform.

> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers