On 1/10/19 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we remove __has_include__?
No.
Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
because for some reason, people write __has_include__ instead of
__has_include. (I don't think there is any difference.)
__has_include needs to be a macro, while __has_include__ is a weirdo
builtin that does all the magic. But one needs to be able to
#ifdef __has_include
etc.
Why not give the wierdo __has_include__ an unspellable name?
('builtin<SPACE>has<SPACE>include') and take care constructing the
__has_include macro expansion to have a token with exactly that spelling?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
