On 14-May-2005, Ken Raeburn wrote: | >> /* N.B.: Application code will sometimes test whether one of these | >> macros is defined, to figure out if the version of Guile in use | >> predates the creation of the macro. So at deprecation time, we | >> still want the macro to be visible. ANSI C says "#define foo foo" | >> is okay, but if we get complaints about it, try switching the | >> non-macro name to "foo_" or "foo_deprecated" or something; make it | >> a simple concatenation so that we can make the other macros | >> continue to be simple. */ | > | > I think we should assume in advance that we'll hit trouble with this | > on some platforms. Otherwise it's just another hiccup to push people | > away from trying Guile out. | | *sigh* I was afraid of that. So when do we start requiring "real" | ANSI C support? :-(
Can you point to a widely used compiler that will actually have trouble with this? If not, then maybe it is not worth worrying about? | Doing this means the compile-time messages will give the wrong symbol | names. They'll be close to the names used by the application, but not | the same. Still, getting messages that are close is probably better | than explaining to people why this strange use of the preprocessor is | actually valid and it's their compiler that's broken. I wonder if it's | really a problem these days, though, a decade and a half after the spec | was published.... Having the messages use the wrong names might cause a lot more confusion than having to explain to people that their compiler is broken. jwe -- jwe at octave dot org | Peace would shock and awe me. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
