Re: making conforming headers.

[Steven King <sxking at uswest dot net>]

On Thu, 04 May 2000, Martin v. Loewis wrote:

> I think this is already the case. All headers processed by a C++
> compiler are C++ headers, perhaps with the exception of the headers in
> Annex D.5; which is a C header. Please note that it nowhere says that
> a C header is not C++ header.
>
> Anyway, 17.4.4.1/1 does not say 'only'; it gives a permission (to
> include other headers), instead of imposing a restriction (to include
> only C++ headers, in whatever way you could distinguish them from
> other headers).

Oops.  I dont know where I got that "only" (probably from 17.4.4.1/3).   Its
the cname/name.h problem that I was looking at.  The cname headers are, as most
of them note, non-conforming and the name.h headers dont exist.  Adding the
missing definitions to the cname headers would probably make them more or less
conforming, but given the restriction in 17.4.4.1/3 and the requirements of
annex D.5,  its not possible to add the name.h headers without reworking the
whats being included by the bits/std_cname.h headers.

-- 
Steven King
sxking@uswest.net