On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:16:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Actually, with option -std=c++0x GCC would accept > > for (Direction d : { UP, DOWN }) > { > ... > } > > and that would be readable enough without having to revert to macros.
I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on compiler support for elements of languages that are less than 10 years old. For examples, does clang++ support that? gcc 4.1.2 (which is what GUB has)? gcc 3.4 or whatever openbsd still uses? etc. If we use a macro, then at least we could change the definition in one place in order to work around old/broken compilers. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel