[Libburn] yet another libisofs rewrite

[Derek Foreman]

>From this day forward we will support C99.  Any objections? :)

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Joe Neeman wrote:

> Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that libisofs needed some big changes 
> because it was degenerating into a giant mess of hacks. Once again, the diff 
> is about the size of the old libisofs plus the size of the new libisofs, so I 
> have instead attached a tarball of all the source files.
>
> The current libisofs code lacks Joliet support and is less tested than the 
> old code, but it is much cleaner and about half the size. The previous API 
> hasn't changed much, but I've added a couple new functions. The biggest 
> user-noticeable changes might be that the filesystem tree is no longer 
> modified by the writer and that iso_tree_node->name is now a wchar_t.
>
> Anyway, I thought I'd let people know what's going on. It might be worth 
> holding off on any commits, though, until I've got the features back up to 
> the old features.
>
> Joe
>
> PS: Do we really need to target C90? I like my variable-sized arrays and 
> anonymous unions ;)
>