Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5096Re: __STDCPP__ anybody?
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1988 17:04
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1988 17:04
17 lines
1300 bytes
1300 bytes
In article <2460@plus5.UUCP> hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) writes: >It appears you are advocating two items. >First, no new/additional features should be added because they are >nonstandard (or perhaps "inventive" (Hi, ado!)). No, you asked whether __STDCPP__ would be useful. To be useful for the intended purpose, you would have to have it defined for all Standard- conforming preprocessors. Since it is not in the Standard, it won't be so defined. Therefore it is not useful. >Second, since it is possible to write code which will interpret on both old >and Standard preprocessors, we should do so. Therefore, why bother with >all these new mechanisms anyway? Certainly if you are concerned with both compilation environments, it is generally more work to provide code for each separately than to just use their common intersection.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8178@brl-smoke.ARPA>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwynReferences:
<2459@plus5.UUCP> <8164@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2460@plus5.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: __STDCPP__ anybody? Message-ID: <8178@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: 28 Jun 88 17:04:57 GMT References: <2459@plus5.UUCP> <8164@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2460@plus5.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 16