On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:

>>> 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.

Okay, I was wondering because we seem have gotten into a loop where the same question was being asked again.

>
>> 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.
>


Yes, we disagree. Getting the error means that you are testing something that the compiler for which the compiler does not provide an answer. The mechanism that avoids an error means that you can silently get the incorrect behavior and ODR violations between compilers.

John.