Sender:	nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID:	<358889B3.FB4913DB@cartsys.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:29:55 -0700
From:	Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
CC:	salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: NULL redefined in djgpp headers
References:	<199806171707 DOT NAA25890 AT delorie DOT com>

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > I don't think is a good idea to correct the GNU headers. Why DJ
> > doesn't want to correct the libc headers?
> 
> Because the standard says I must do it the way I do it - the *system*
> headers define NULL, not the application.  It's not feasible to
> protect each and every #define (and not possible to protect the
> prototypes), so a partial solution (protect NULL but not others) is
> nothing more than a mess.
> 
> If the GNU header #define NULL and *then* include system headers, then
> the GNU sources are *wrong*.  *They* should use #ifdef *after* they
> are done including system headers.
> 
> > IMHO is a very bad idea to define NULL without checking or using undef first.
> 
> It's worse to #define something and then #include the header that ANSI
> says is responsible for that symbol.

Then maybe, instead of continually going around and around here, someone
should bring it up on gnu.g++.bug.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com

- Raw text -