[RFC] "C" header options

[Loren James Rittle]

In article < Pine.SOL.3.91.1010608112507.18064D-100000@taarna.cygnus.com >
you write:

>> It's my opinion, and yes, I am slightly biased here, that 3) is the
>> best choice for the long run (read 3.1) since it is robust AND it's
>> compliant AND it's simple.

> The more interesting question is what to do with the staging headers 
> patch of yours, Stephen. I've used it for the last couple of days in my 
> source tree and I think it is an improvement to what had existed. It 
> takes some getting used to, but there are some real advantages to 
> treating all the headers as things that must be built.

I too have reviewed Stephen's work in this area, as last posted by
Benjamin (although I haven't added it to any source trees).  I like
the idea of moving to "everything to be installed as a header is
staged/built".

Regards,
Loren