-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thats a hack; its dirty and its non-intuitive. I'd advice against that.
What about having a source formatter that checks this? A make check seems like a good candidate to report warnings like these. On Friday 09 April 2004 15:49, Eric Blake wrote: > Tom Tromey wrote: > > My only comment or criticism is that, in the absence of regular > > checking for this, we'll just see more code like it checked in. > > That's been the experience with non-C89 constructs, I don't see why > > this would be any different. It's just too hard to remember to write > > in some language subset without compiler-assisted checking. > > To avoid regressions, would we want to use a common header file to > #define the C++ keywords into something that will generate a > compile-time error when compiling under C? That is > > #define this do not use C++ keywords, JNI must compile in C and C++ - -- Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAduFpCojCW6H2z/QRAhmgAKCQQi2bMbb6WwOu47cRKlpKKRL9PwCgxG1I 1S/Pv3uNVguHiOY0yLBkzbM= =iStU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
