Tue, 29 May 2001 10:37:54 +0200, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Just to restate my position: I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name
> in double quotes, unless
>
>#include "foo/bar.h"
>
> implies
>
>#include
>
> if the first form is not found.
It does, but having
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name
> > in double quotes, unless
> >
> >#include "foo/bar.h"
> >
> > implies
> >
> >#include
> >
> > if the first form is not found.
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> > Now that we require the include file to have the suffix
> > `.h', the declaration should be unambigious without '!'.
> > Or do I overlook anything?
>
> To be exact, we don't require a `.h' suffix, we just don't add `.h
Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ "" implies <> ]
>
> It does.
>
> > I'm not sure about this, although it's guaranteed
> > the other way round IIRC.
>
> You recall incorrectly. [...]
Well, at least I had a 50-50 chance! :-} OK, then let's a
On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name
> in double quotes, unless
>
>#include "foo/bar.h"
>
> implies
>
>#include
>
> if the first form is not found.
It does.
> I'm not sure about this, although it's guaranteed
> th
On 29-May-2001, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
> > Fergus Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > The calling convention should not necessarily default to 'ccall'.
> > > That would not be appropriate for all implementations.
> >
> > Granted.
> >
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > But it's hard to parse without the newline, and it's going to
> > be hard to specify a catch-all syntax that enables the documentation
> > generator to skip all the jvm-specific junk.
> >
> > I think we should stuff it into a execution-platform-specific
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> Now that we require the include file to have the suffix
> `.h', the declaration should be unambigious without '!'.
> Or do I overlook anything?
To be exact, we don't require a `.h' suffix, we just don't add `.h' stealthily.
And if I read the ISO C spec correctl
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > I like '&', but I'm less sure about '!' - this feels like we're getting
> > a little too cryptic.
>
> The reason for the "cryptic" '!' is avoiding ambiguity. Let's assume we
> introduce a modifier which looks like a valid C identifier. What should
> the
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > The calling convention should not necessarily default to 'ccall'.
> > That would not be appropriate for all implementations.
>
> Granted.
>
> > Instead, I think the default calling convention should be
> > implementation-dep
[Sorry for being absent from this discussion for a while.
Teaching took its share...]
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > The reason for not putting them in the source is because the names of
> > libraries change from system to system but their APIs don't. It's
>
11 matches
Mail list logo