So it sounds like I should keep an ear out tomorrow and for the scheduled
slot.
I *wish* it would work, but I have been involved in enough cases where it
didn't and where the only viable solution was to rip it out.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 14:43 Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, 19:29 Steve Downey via Liaison, <
> liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I see that there's yet another proposal for standardization of pragma
>> once on the agenda for C?
>>
>
> Yep.
>
> Is there any chance that this gets adopted? Because at scale it doesn't
>> work, and causes both structural and transient problems, and it will be
>> even harder to get people not to use it if it's in the standard.
>>
>
> That keeps being explained, but people keep saying "but it worked when I
> tried it and I want it" :-(
>
>
>
>
>> The include guard replacement form would be OK, but also doesn't fix the
>> common complaints about guards, that it suffers from collision and
>> cut/paste errors.
>>
>
> Indeed. That form does work, and is a little more convenient than having
> to name the token twice, and end the file with #endif
>
> I wouldn't be opposed to *only* having that form, but that's not the
> proposal.
>
>