Re: Portable replacement function for `trunc'?

[Benoit SIGOURE]

On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:

> Benoit SIGOURE wrote:
> > The fact
> > that it said "Gnulib module: —" sounded weird to me, but I found that
> > since this was a single and simple function, it could be that there
> > is no need to make a whole module around it.  The "Portability
> > problems not fixed by Gnulib:" simply told me that the replacement
> > function wasn't working on the architectures listed but since I don't
> > target these for the time being, it didn't disturb me.
>
> Thanks for explaining this. It is often hard to understand why a  
> doc is bad.
>
> > If the function is not available, why is it there in the first
> > place?  If the intent of the doc is to list all functions with
> > possible portability issues (sic!), why not write something more
> > explicit such as "Gnulib module: @emph{not available}."?
>
> Whether "---" means that a module is not needed or not available,  
> depends
> on your evaluation of the severity of the portability problems.  
> Therefore
> I cannot write this explicitly for each module.
>
> But what I can do, is to help explain this situation a bit:

Thanks for making this clearer.

--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part