Re: PATCH: Adhere to section 17.4.1.2 clause 5 of ISO 14882:1998

[Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>]

Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:

[...]

| For reference, here is section 17.4.1.2 clause 5 of ISO 14882:1998:
| 
| ``Names which are defined as macros in C shall be defined as macros in
|   the C++ Standard Library, even if C grants license for
|   implementation as functions [Note: the names defined as macros in C
|   include the following: assert, errno, offsetof, setjmp, va_arg,
|   va_end, and va_start. - end note]''
| 
| Are you honestly telling me that there is no agreement between
| committee members that the above quoted section has the obvious
| meaning?

Each section taken separately usually has the obvious meaning.  No
dispute.  It is the aggregation of the (conflicting) sections which
cause problem. 
Steve's last sentnce was:

   This issue was presented to the C++ committee, but fell into a crack
   without being resolved or put onto an Issues List. I'm glad you posted
   this question, because now we can see that the issue gets resolved.

[...]

| > We need to ensure that they are either macros or else identifiers with
| > external linkage.
| 
| Not until someone takes an active interest in global name space
| cleanliness.  Even then, I argue that my patch makes the problem no
| worse than it currently is.  Do you disagree?

Yes.

[...]

| > Experience shows that we cannot build a C++ library on top of a C
| > implementation without intrusive knowledge of that library :-(
| 
| Well, libstdc++-v3 should just close up shop and go home then.  I
| guess we all have been wasting our time and effort in that goal.
| 
| I don't buy it.

Then, I suspect you should have some data we don't, would you mind
finishing the c-shadow project? :-)

-- Gaby