[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Convensions for NO_<feature> instead of HAVE_<feature>?
|
From: |
Paul Eggert |
|
Subject: |
Re: Convensions for NO_<feature> instead of HAVE_<feature>? |
|
Date: |
Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:30:03 -0800 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
On 11/07/11 22:18, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Are there any conventions for what to call such feature macros
No, but I suggest using LACK_FEATURE,
as "lack" means the opposite of "have",
whereas the suggestions you gave do not
have that property (i.e., they lack
that property :-).