On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hello Sean,
* Sean C. Farley <s...@freebsd.org>, 20111230 03:54:
I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should
__bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set?
It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++.
Even if the C++ standard doesn't mention it at all, I think it doesn't
mean it is forbidden to define it. It starts with __[a-z], so it is in
the reserved namespace.
I am fine with it. I found many variations of stdbool.h with some
wrapping __bool_true_false_are_defined within the __cplusplus check
(e.g., glibc) and some that did not. glibc may have it because
stdbool.h is included from cstdbool and stdbool.h in
/usr/include/c++/4.2/tr1/.
Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file
be based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious
for this within style(9), but I am curious.
I am not aware of this.
I am not aware of it either, hence, my question. It was just something
to which I have grown accustomed. Using __bool_true_false_are_defined
as the guard works.
Sean
--
s...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
