From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-18 20:59:48
Daryle Walker <dwalker07_at_[hidden]> 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