This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Preprocessor keyword #echo is missing
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>
- Cc: "J. Grant" <jg-web at jguk dot org>, Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, gcc-bugs <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:25:42 -0800
- Subject: Re: Preprocessor keyword #echo is missing
- References: <3E301211.7090405@gmx.net><87bs2725gs.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <3E308BD8.40401@gmx.net><878yxbqs6j.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3E30976B.7030506@gmx.net><873cnjqq63.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3E37E3F5.4060709@jguk.org><87fzquwupv.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3E494030.90803@roguewave.com>
Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com> writes:
> 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
That is an #error analog, not #echo. I do consider it a useful
feature, but if I were implementing it I'd just take the spec straight
from N1381 (with appropriate modifications for C) -- don't see the
need for a static_echo().
I wonder why the string literal is included there, when it isn't for
the runtime assert().
zw