Re: [Patch] Fix ac_c99_complex configury

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
>
>| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| 
>| >Old iostream members refer to the classic iostreams,
>| >i.e. <iostream.h>.  Thereis no doubt about it :-)
>| >  
>| >
>| Agreed, you are using the smiley, but I'd like to see a bit of
>| substantive evidence for this interpretation.
>
>Just look around.
>What else do think "old iostreams members" mean in the compatibility
>section?
>
Means adding "old iostreams members", *members*, *not headers*: that is,
the various typedefs in D.6/1, stossc() in /7, etc., etc. Really, I
think you are forcing the text to say *much* more than it says. Maybe
it's a defect of the Standard, this lack of discussion of entities that
everyone believes should be there, but currently those *.h headers
simply are not there.

>| Then, maybe we should find a way to solve the problems themselves. For
>| instance, AFAIK, ICC/Dinkum used to provide a set of backward/ headers,
>| among which <complex.h> and <algobase.h> and <hash_map.h>, and so on.
>| Maybe they figured out a way to solve (or work around) those problems,
>| preferable to removing just a subset of the headers which we don't
>| ""like"" :-)
>
>Certainly on my side, it is not a "I don't like" thingy.  If you want
>to remove files because you don't like them, then that is certainly
>not a good enough reason. 
>My rationale is not based on affection.
>
>   #include <stdio.h>
>   #include <complex.h>
>
>   int main { }
>
>which header do you want to pick, given the C99 compatibilty?
>
I can give you any answer, and of course I agree that there are
currently problems in this area. A *completely* different issue,
however, is whether the proper fix involves removing a subset of the
backward headers. As already mentioned, that choice is only *a* choice,
not the only possible choice, as a matter of fact.

Paolo.