Re: Preprocessor keyword #echo is missing

[Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> "J. Grant" <jg-web@jguk.org> writes:
>
>
> > > Frankly I do not consider the elimination of that extra text to be
> > > sufficient justification for adding another directive.  You can do
> > > gcc ... 2>&1 | sed -e 's/warning: #warning //' if it really bugs you.
> > I am using this currently, an #echo solution would be a better way to
> > resolve this though.
>
> I honestly do not see why you think that.
>
> Note that even #warning is an extension, and has been controversial.
>
>
> > OK, well would you consider that #echo would be a useful addition to
> > the GCC preprocessor language?  I personally do and I can not believe
> > I am the only one who sees this gap that needs filling.
>
> Sorry, but I do not see a need.
A #echo at the compiler level rather than at the preprocessor level
would, IMHO, be extremely useful in the context of metaprogramming.
At the very least, it would provide a framework for the proposed
implementation of the static assert feature:

http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1381.htm

Regards
Martin