From:	"John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: New to djgpp -- curious compilation problem
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:08:38 -0800
Organization:	Two pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt
Lines:	20
Message-ID:	<32E44F56.553@cs.com>
References:	<abostickE4BLn0 DOT 5EE AT netcom DOT com>
Reply-To:	fighteer AT cs DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ppp211.cs.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Alan Bostick wrote:
> 
> Is that what's going on?  That is, does v2.7.2.1 of GCC use a later
> definition of C++ than v2.5.8, one in which 'false' and 'true' are
> reserved words or something similar?

I don't know if the new C++ standards define false and true as reserved,
but I do know that GNU C++ v2.7.2.1 does.  You can use anything other
than 'false' and 'true' in your enum type and it will work as desired. 
That said, why not have your program detect this condition with a test
for the gcc version and if it is satisfied, use the predefined
constants.  It may save you some time.  :)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I  |        fighteer AT cs DOT com         |
| "Starting flamewars since 1993"  |   http://www.cs.com/fighteer   |
|  *** NOTICE ***  This .signature is generated randomly.           |
|                  If you don't like it, sue my computer.           |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Raw text -