🚀 go-pugleaf

< We are in an environment in which we use a cpp which meets the (proposed)
< C standard, but we don't have a standard C compiler.
< 
< As y'all well know, a standard cpp does some things differently than "older"
< cpps, so we get to #ifdef our code in certain places.  Using __STDC__ as
< an indicator is not going to cut it, as it indicates a standard cpp as well
< as a standard C compiler.
< 
< Does anybody besides me think a __STDCPP__ predefined symbol would be of
< value?

Sorry; I proposed "__STDP__" to X3J11 a couple of drafts ago; it was
categorized as "inventive" and the committee decided against incorporating
the suggestion.  You'll see it listed in the boilerplate that the Committee
sends out in response to letters.
-- 
	ado@ncifcrf.gov			ADO is a trademark of Ampex.