On May 27, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Michele Simionato wrote:
I would not spend much time in supporting "include" or more advanced features, since they would not be portable anyway.
But *I* and many others do use these features and I never thought of "include" as brittle or nonstandard. That's why I need to fix it. As for being nonstandard or nonportable, well, so what? It can't magically appear in the standard just because I dreamt it last night. :-) It needs to be implemented, documented, used, found useful (or not), pushed to other implementations, before becoming "standard". I never shy from implementing a feature because it's not standard. Aziz,,,
