Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On 31-May-2001, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > > Making the semantics of a particular construct implementation-dependent is
> > > a good thing if the semantics that you want are
Michael Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 22:59:37 +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> > So, it all boils down to the question of whether this
> > (probably rare) case justifies the (not very large) extra
> > complexity of allowing header file names enclosed in <>.
>
On 31-May-2001, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > Making the semantics of a particular construct implementation-dependent is
> > a good thing if the semantics that you want are implementation-dependent.
> > Doing this allows the c
