X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Message-ID: <3FFF2187.4000708@phekda.gotadsl.co.uk> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:47:51 +0000 From: Richard Dawe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031031 X-Accept-Language: en, de, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: stdbool.h and complex.h References: <3FFCF1F4 DOT B86AC9DA AT yahoo DOT com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Esa A E Peuha wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, CBFalconer wrote: > > >>>#ifndef __dj_stdbool__h_ >>>#define __dj_stdbool__h_ >>> >>>#if (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) \ >>> || !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) [snip] >>I question whether it is necessary to have the __STDC_VERSION etc. >>guard, or even desirable. > > > Yes, it is both. If the user asks for strict ANSI C89, then our headers > must not define anything not in that standard, even if any specific > header (like this one) isn't in the standard. I agree. > Maybe we should add warnings like "#warn using stdbool.h while > in strict ANSI C89 mode" (or even #error, since strict ANSI > doesn't know about #warn). Using warnings in C library headers sounds like a bad idea to me; you may not be able to build with -Werror. I also don't think it's our duty to force portability on the programmer. Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/ ] "You can't evaluate a man by logic alone." -- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek