On Do, 2016-06-02 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/02/2016 02:26 PM, David Seifert wrote: > > > > We could relax the whole thing a bit, and maybe just make a plain > > __cplusplus check, without a version number. This keeps the C side > > as > > it always has been, but allows C++'s proper literals to kick in. > > > > In addition, _Bool is also a major obstacle, as it does not exist > > in > > C++ (and does so only for GCC due to some GNUisms in libstdc++ with > > -std=c++98). Would you consider moving away from _Bool and > > replacing > > all uses of it with bool? After all, <stdbool.h> by itself only > > mandates the existence of bool/true/false. > Sure, that all sounds fine (in C++ only of course). Dear Paul, any updates on merging the patch I sent in?
David
