🚀 go-pugleaf

John Max Skaller <maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au> writes:

>matt@cyclops5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) wrote:
>>
>>So my challenge: can anyone think of an acceptable replacement for
>>"The named source file is searched for in an implementation-defined
>>manner" that would provide a bit more of a guarantee of reasonable
>>behavior?
>
>Yes. GET RID OF #include ALTOGETHER. <grin>
>
>The way to do this is to have a system
>where you can "use" modules in the source code.
>
>To _find_ the modules, an implementation specific
>control file, menu, or whatever is used: I'd
>start with a file of pairs (module name, filename)
>plus some defaults and autosearch instructions.

I agree that separating module names from file names is a good idea,
but -- as recent discussion on comp.lang.ada indicates -- if you leave
the mapping as implementation specific, different implementations will
adopt different conventions, and so while you will have just simplified
the problem, you won't have solved it.

--
Fergus Henderson             	WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              	PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]