Re: CVS commit: src
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 04:42:30AM +, David Holland wrote: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:38:21PM +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: A related note: should we provide typeof(3) in the restricted namespace instead, i.e. as __typeof(3)? People are more likely to find the page if it's installed as typeof(3), I think, since that's how they'll think of it, and if necessary the page can include discussion of when it's an available symbol. No, I mean shouldn't this be defined conditionally in cdefs(3)? But as typeof(3) can not be replaced by another compiler-agnostic construct (?), probably not. - Jukka.
Re: CVS commit: src
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 09:51:00PM +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: A related note: should we provide typeof(3) in the restricted namespace instead, i.e. as __typeof(3)? People are more likely to find the page if it's installed as typeof(3), I think, since that's how they'll think of it, and if necessary the page can include discussion of when it's an available symbol. No, I mean shouldn't this be defined conditionally in cdefs(3)? But as typeof(3) can not be replaced by another compiler-agnostic construct (?), probably not. Oh, I see. It might be desirable but as it's a language extension I'm not sure we get that degree of control. However, since AFAICR typeof is fairly likely to appear in c1x, probably many compilers will eventually supply it. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
