Re: [Patch] Fix ac_c99_complex configury

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| 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.

But just look at what other implementers do.  If you believe this is
my invention, why don't you ask on the -lib reflector for existing
practice? 

|  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.

 What problems do you see with the other headers? 

-- Gaby