On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:16:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Actually, with option -std=c++0x GCC would accept
>
> for (Direction d : { UP, DOWN })
> {
> ...
> }
>
> and that would be readable enough without having to revert to macros.
I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on compiler
support for elements of languages that are less than 10 years old.
For examples, does clang++ support that? gcc 4.1.2 (which is what
GUB has)? gcc 3.4 or whatever openbsd still uses? etc.
If we use a macro, then at least we could change the definition in
one place in order to work around old/broken compilers.
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
