Hi Jim, > As you can see, my silence was not indicative of indifference > or agreement ;-)
Then I misinterpreted it, sorry. > I find it counter to the gnulib philosophy > to let a misfeature like the this evoke changes to so many files. > Normally we try hard to make it so feature-poor systems do not > evoke ugliness in the code we maintain, and we try even harder to > avoid letting those systems induce a process burden (however small) > on gnulib development. I mostly agree with you, except for the detail that I count the overall complexity of a patch, not how many files it touches. A patch that applies the same change to 44 files is not so complex for me. I agree with you - to avoid ugliness in the code, - to avoid introducing a process burden. The patch I proposed and committed minimized both, because it merely changed a 3-line idiom to a 4-line idiom. New .in.h files will certainly be modeled on the existing ones, therefore a simple copy&paste will produce the required new 4-line idiom. > Thus, technically we must now remember that for each new > @pragma_system_hea...@-using .in.h file, we must also use @pragma_colu...@. > > That deserves a syntax-check rule in Makefile. Thanks! I'm glad you think at installing these checks for the future, because I never think at them. Bruno
