On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 09:51:00PM +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.
Oh, I see. It might be desirable but as it's a language extension I'm not sure we get that degree of control. However, since AFAICR typeof is fairly likely to appear in c1x, probably many compilers will eventually supply it. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org