Daryle Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> My point was that warnings are non-portable constructions made up >>> by compiler makers. >> >> So are the semantics of #include. That doesn't mean we can't count >> on certain similarities (though they may be hard to find). > > Actually, the semantics of #include aren't that made up; they are > constrained by standard.
Slightly. They are still "non-portable constructions made up by compiler makers." We rely on what we can count on in practice. > In contrast, a compiler doesn't even have to have warnings, In practice they all do. > let alone define them in an easy-to-exploit manner or with any > similarity to other compilers. Whether they do in practice remains to be seen. > I don't want to see a big effort (i.e. a long #if/#elif chain from > heck with subtle details and could break at the next release of any > compiler) on something that is inherently non-portable. How about a small effort? There aren't really all that many front-ends. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
