Quoting Emil Velikov (2017-12-05 07:36:25)
> On 4 December 2017 at 23:57, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2017-11-23 11:04:34)
> >> On 20 November 2017 at 23:12, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >> > This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to
On 4 December 2017 at 23:57, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2017-11-23 11:04:34)
>> On 20 November 2017 at 23:12, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> > This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to do, as extern C
>> > doesn't undefine __cplusplus,
Quoting Emil Velikov (2017-11-23 11:04:34)
> On 20 November 2017 at 23:12, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to do, as extern C
> > doesn't undefine __cplusplus, so the included headers define a template
> > (because __cplusplus is
Quoting Emil Velikov (2017-11-23 11:04:34)
> On 20 November 2017 at 23:12, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to do, as extern C
> > doesn't undefine __cplusplus, so the included headers define a template
> > (because __cplusplus is
On 20 November 2017 at 23:12, Dylan Baker wrote:
> This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to do, as extern C
> doesn't undefine __cplusplus, so the included headers define a template
> (because __cplusplus is defined), but then that code is in an 'extern
> "C"'
This doesn't actually accomplish what it's meant to do, as extern C
doesn't undefine __cplusplus, so the included headers define a template
(because __cplusplus is defined), but then that code is in an 'extern
"C"' block, and explosion.
Signed-off-by: Dylan Baker
---