-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
>>>>Another problem I found was the use of deprecated headers. Instead of >>>><foo.h> newer compilers would prefer you to use <foo> >>>Yes, and lots of people have older compilers that don't like the <foo> >>>notation. >> >>Even today? >Would it surprise you to learn that I still regularly build ht://Dig >with gcc version 2.7.2.1? I thought that gcc 2.7.2 was new enough to support the <foo> include notation, but maybe this is not the case. >The ".h" in header file names is a very well established, decades-old >standard that's not going to disappear overnight. It's cool that newer >compilers make the .h optional, but that some of these compilers now >give warning messages, or even error messages, when the .h is there is, >in my opinion, a capricious and poorly thought-out deviation from this >established standard. The newer compilers are just trying to follow the C++ standard, you can't fault them for that. Giving a fatal error for the foo.h form is a bit much I agree, but a warning message is reasonable. The problem here is that the configure script is very touchy and thinks the compiler warning means that <fstream.h> won't work. - -- Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Finger for PGP key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8wD2TIMp73jhGogoRAlsgAJoCnD3bxvHUN7LkTHU4uT92bPjY6wCffXxs BxWOjEXqHM9Wm5HRquZBk6M= =Ti8X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
