On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 10:32 +0300, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote: > 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.
My (xitomatl include) is fully portable. Compatibility libraries allow many things to be portable without needing standards. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
