[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert |
Date: |
Thu, 5 May 2011 19:48:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Hi Paul,
> > Identifiers starting with __ are in the namespace of compiler and libc
> > implementation.
>
> Identifiers starting with "_G" are also reserved
In the terminology of the standards, there's only the C implementation and
the application. The term "reserved" draws the borderline between the two
territories.
But with gnulib, we have three territories: the C implementation, gnulib,
and the application. From the point of the C implementation, gnulib is
application code. From the point of the application, gnulib is part of the
C implementation. So we have to use a careful pragmatic choice in order
not to conflict with one or the other.
> I'll change the __gl_ prefix to a _gl_ prefix.
Thanks.
Bruno
--
In memoriam Peter van Pels <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Pels>
- proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/05
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Bruno Haible, 2011/05/05
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/05
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/05
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/06
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Bruno Haible, 2011/05/22
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/22
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Bruno Haible, 2011/05/29
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Paul Eggert, 2011/05/29
- Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Bruno Haible, 2011/05/29
Re: proposed support for C1X-style static_assert, Andy Moreton, 2011/05/06