On Jul 12, 2016 10:32 PM, "Cory Nelson" <phro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While uncommon, it is not unheard of for apps to use include guards to > check for a library's existence. While it is indeed not in compliance, > in practice fixing this may affect existing SQLite users.
Good point, though personally I would weigh this in a different class of backward compatibility changes. I don't think changing this would be bad. But I also don't think a change is necessary. Driving 51 in a zone posted 50 is also not in compliance (with a different standard, of course). Yet we violate that standard all the time. The reality is that I'm not aware of a single platform that will fail to generate correct code for this (outside of treat all warnings as errors). Yes, it is a standards violation in the strictest sense. Yet it's not a big deal given the number of successful deployments. If anyone can demonstrate an implementation that uses this identifier in a way that is incompatible with SQLite, then it should be changed. Otherwise it seems to me that disabling treat all warning as errors (or this one warning in the impacted projects and files) is the least disruptive change for all concerned. > > -- > Cory Nelson > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
