[Libburn] yet another libisofs rewrite

[Dana Jansens]

I strongly believe we should allow only the parts of C99 that are
compatible with C++. As well this should not include GNU extensions.

Here is a document listing features that are not compatible between C99 and C++:
http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm

Dana

On 2/10/06, Derek Foreman <manmower at signalmarketing.com> wrote:
>
> >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 ;)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> libburn mailing list
> libburn at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libburn
>