From: Daryle Walker (dwalker07_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-20 13:33:10
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 12:38 AM, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Daryle Walker <dwalker07_at_[hidden]>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 9:59 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Slightly. They are still "non-portable constructions made up by
>>> compiler makers."
>> As I understand it, the #include directive dumps the contents of a
>> file found from the standard (<>) and/or user ("") header space. The
>> only degrees of variance is how the mapping of header names to
>> files/sources occurs and how the standard headers are handled.
There is nothing in that thread that affects what I said. That poster
is asking about the specifics of the implementation-defined mapping,
I'm just stating the existence of it.
> Also, I have resisted once but now you want to make me suffer :-)
>> From another post in this thread:
>> Warnings are completely non-portable, since:
>> 1. They have no official standing in the standard, just errors do
[My mail client badly wrapped here. The "^" underlined the "errors do"]
There're called "diagnostics" in the standard (besides the "#error"
>> 3. They are 100% legal code, the vendor just doesn't like it
Yes. If they wasn't legal code, the compiler would have to flag it as
an error. Undefined behavior can exist (so change my 100% to 90+%),
but it's something the complier can't statically determine. The
warning mechanism can't find it either, since it's also limited to
static determination; it could flag code that has a high probability of
undefined behavior as a practical alternative.
>> Equating the implementation-defined parts of #include to the warning
>> concept, which has no official standing, is a gross >> misrepresentation.
> I don't think Dave was really equating. He was probably just saying
> that features not exactly specified, or not specified at all, by the
> standard can still be useful in practice.
> Not that I'm for BOOST_STATIC_WARNING, just to avoid such erroneous
> information about what is standard and what is not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk