version and debug statements

[Sean Kelly]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
> 
>>> Having large parts of Posix be implementation dependent kinda shoots 
>>> the whole
>>> idea of a standard in the foot.
>>
>> I feel the need to cry foul here, a little.  Which parts are 
>> implementation defined?  How widely used are those parts?  In my 
>> experience, the vast majority of the parts that are used with any 
>> major frequency are identical between the various posix compliant 
>> operating systems.
> 
> And say 10% varies and 90% is the same as the standard, isn't it better
> then to "reuse" those parts that are the same and only conditionalize
> the parts that actually differ ? Instead of copy/paste the whole thing ?

This is what I've been doing in Ares, though it remains to be seen 
whether this is the correct approach or not.  I've been sticking to the 
'required' bits and any additional features needed for D and so far 
probably 50% of it is platform-specific.  I know you've seen the Ares 
Posix headers, but for anyone that hasn't, they are accessible here:

http://svn.dsource.org/projects/ares/trunk/src/ares/std/c/posix/

Note that I precede each section of declarations with a comment block 
listing whatever the spec says should be defined for that segment, so 
the files are probably twice as long as they should be.  The comments 
also aren't terribly easy to spot in a browser, but they show up quite 
nicely in a code editor :-)

By the way, please note that only the "Required" and "C Extension" 
segments are actually necessary.  The others are all optional for one 
reason or another.


Sean