Re: MiNT goes UNiX, invitation for mailing list (MINTOS)

[Christian Lynbech <lynbech@daimi.aau.dk>]

> Btw., why not just using __MINT__ as a compiler switch, it is
> predefined by the MiNTlibs and independent of the compiler.  For
> compiler dependent code we can use atarist for GCC, ??? for PureC, and
> so on.


Because people have already used __MINT__ in an incompatible way, I
believe. For instance, in tcsh, the startup file is named cshrc.csh
(not .cshrc) on the atari.

More important is that UNIX conformance is an extra demand or feature,
that I do not think should be merged with the __MINT__ switch. Let
__MINT__ mean `mint functionality' only. Not everyone may like unix
and minixfs, and there is no reason to deny those users the
possibility to recompile sources. For instance, tcsh works well on a
TOS filesystem, given the necessary hacks to filenames and such.

So it would beb better to tie the choice between the two types:
`maximum unix conformance' and `maximum tos compability' to a brand
new switch, whether that would be a I_WANT_UNIX or I_WANT_TOS.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech               | Hit the philistines three times over the 
office: R0.33 (phone: 3217)	| head with the Elisp reference manual.
email: lynbech@daimi.aau.dk	|        - petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------