On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru> wrote:
The question is, whether it still makes sense to provide that define
when MinGW already provides one.  I can imagine, though, that history
proved the MinGW-provided definition to be volatile.

Volatilty was one reason. Another one is that ECL is supposed to provide the kind of "host" as a macro (mingw, cygwin, etc). In the last months I have come to realize that this is not good practice, for it pollutes the preprocessor namespace. I would say moving towards more standard macros, and providing some sanity checks (that these names do not change or disappear) would be the desird route.

Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)