[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:26:24 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:16:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Actually, with option -std=c++0x GCC would accept
>
> for (Direction d : { UP, DOWN })
> {
> ...
> }
>
> and that would be readable enough without having to revert to macros.
I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on compiler
support for elements of languages that are less than 10 years old.
For examples, does clang++ support that? gcc 4.1.2 (which is what
GUB has)? gcc 3.4 or whatever openbsd still uses? etc.
If we use a macro, then at least we could change the definition in
one place in order to work around old/broken compilers.
- Graham
- for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/17
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, address@hidden, 2012/04/20
- Message not available
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/04/22
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/23
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/15