C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] How closely should our recommendation match clang?

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:10:42 +0000
> > I'm not sure I see the value of taking such perversity into account.
> >
> We're loosing how we got to this place in the conversation. You
> previously said:

Actually, I hadn't lost my place in the conversation.

> I'm saying that the error is in some ways a "feature" because it
> prevents you from silently getting the wrong behavior.
> Either mechanism requires that a conforming compiler define the needed
> macro(s). The function-like syntax lets you know when you are using a
> that is not supported by your compiler (which can then be worked around,
> if needed by something like a command-line macro definition).

Well, we just disagree. I see the potential for this error, and the effort to avoid it, as a pure disadvantage. And that's why I prefer the identifier-only syntax.


Received on 2013-01-29 20:10:46