THANK YOU!

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), PL22.11 Chair
C/C++ Compiler Development
rbhakta_at_[hidden]

IBM



From: "Aaron Ballman via Liaison" <liaison_at_[hidden]>
To: "WG14/WG21 liaison mailing list" <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Cc: "Aaron Ballman" <aaron_at_[hidden]>
Date: 02/03/2022 03:20 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] #once proposal
Sent by: "Liaison" <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]>



<chair hat>
I'd like to redirect our energy away from trying to guess what
(most/many/all/etc) users do or don't do (no one knows this well
enough to make meaningful assertions, generally) and back towards
providing actionable feedback for the paper author on how to modify
their paper in order to strengthen consensus. Thanks!
</chair hat>

~Aaron

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:42 PM Ville Voutilainen via Liaison
<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 22:30, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:03 PM Ville Voutilainen
> > <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a rather bold claim to make, considering that there are
> >
> > There is nothing bold about it, it is reality:
> >
> >
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/rxb6r2/include_guards_or_pragma_once/

> >
https://github.com/search?l=C&q=%22%23pragma+once%22&type=Code

>
> The second link is performing a search on a tiny drop in the ocean of
> source code in this world.
> I fail to see how that proves your claim of "widely used everywhere".
>
>
> >The pitfalls with `#pragma once` are understood, and even
> >mentioned in the paper, and referenced too. You don't need to convince
> >me.
>
> If that's really the case, I wonder why you haven't dropped that
> identifier-less part of your proposal.
> Based on field experience, those caveats are not widely understood,
> and standardizing that footgun
> will lead to rather nasty surprises when innocent users think a plain
> #once works as it advertises on
> the tin. "Surely a standards committee knows better than to
> standardize something as quirky as that", they'll
> say.
>
> > > So no - it's not widely used everywhere, there are quite a few
> > > software houses where its use is completely banned,
> > > because it doesn't work.
> > "Widely used everywhere" does not mean *every single project*. It
> > simply means it is widely used in many domains / projects / companies.
>
> We seem to have different definitions of "everywhere". Mine is not a
> synonym of "used in many <insert whichever word here>".
> That's not what "everywhere" means, according to any dictionary that I
> can consult.
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription:
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison

> Link to this post:
http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2022/02/0945.php

_______________________________________________
Liaison mailing list
Liaison_at_[hidden]
Subscription:
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison

Link to this post:
http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2022/02/0954.php