"Joseph S. Myers" <jos...@codesourcery.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> like to get rid of them and just keep the genuine operators. The problem >> is that I'd have liked the AND routine to be "wi::and", but of course that >> isn't possible with "and" being a keyword, so I went for "wi::bit_and" >> instead. Same for "not" and "wi::bit_not", and "or" and "wi::bit_or". >> Then it seemed like the others should be bit_* too, and "wi::bit_and_not" >> just seems a bit unwieldly... >> >> Hmm, if we decide to forbid the use of "and" in gcc, perhaps we could >> #define it to something safe. But that would probably be too confusing. > > "and" in C++ is not a keyword, but an alternative token (like %> etc.). > As such, it can't be defined as a macro, or used as a macro name in > #define, #ifdef etc., and does not get converted to 0 in #if conditions > but is interpreted as an operator there.
Ah, thanks, hadn't realised that. In some ways I'm glad that such a bad idea would fail to work :-) Richard
