* Nathan Sidwell:
> 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?
Wouldn't that break -dM rather horribly?
Thanks,
Florian
