🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 270631188wnr@pires.co.uk, Martin Bonner <mbonner@pires.co.uk> writes:
>Following up from the discussion of "#if XXXX", is there
>any chance of getting "#warning" into the standard? Or is it
>too late
>
>It would be useful.  
>It would be easy to implement.  
>It would achieve something that cannot be achieved in any other way.  
>
>(Have I forgotten anything?)

Yes, you forgot to say how it differs from #error, which is already in the
draft (and in Standard C). The description of #error says only that it
"causes the implementation to produce a diagnostic message that includes
the specified sequence of preprocessing tokens."

I suspect you have in mind that somehow #error would halt compilation
and #warning would not, but we don't get to talk about those things in
the standard. There needn't be a separate compilation stage, for example,
and an implementation is not required to differentiate between "compile
time" and "run time". Consider a pure interpreter that seems to execute
source code directly, or a "just-in-time" system that compiles a module
or part of a module on the fly the first time it is referenced.

The standard describes valid source-language constructs and the effect they
have in an executing program. Details of compiler behavior cannot reasonably
be discussed without placing undesirable constraints on implementations.
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy is
  in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]