On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 04:42:30AM +0000, David Holland wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:38:21PM +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > > A related note: should we provide typeof(3) in the restricted namespace > > instead, i.e. as __typeof(3)? > > People are more likely to find the page if it's installed as > typeof(3), I think, since that's how they'll think of it, and if > necessary the page can include discussion of when it's an available > symbol.
No, I mean shouldn't this be defined conditionally in cdefs(3)? But as typeof(3) can not be replaced by another compiler-agnostic construct (?), probably not. - Jukka.
