Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:57:00 +0300
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 05:06, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> - You reject the hash-the-contents solution; therefore, you will never ever use `#pragma once`. Therefore it doesn't matter to your use-case whether we standardize it (for environments-that-aren't-yours) or not.
That conclusion is incorrect. It does matter to me that we don't
standardize solutions that do not work, when we have existing working
solutions available in the standard, and superior replacements too.
> If your experience matches Gasper's experience and everyone-who-might-object-to-#pragma-once's experience, then it would appear that there's no technical objection to standardizing `#pragma once` for the environments that do support it (i.e. not yours).
I don't know what your definition of "technical" is, but this
objection is technical to the hilt.
> - You reject the hash-the-contents solution; therefore, you will never ever use `#pragma once`. Therefore it doesn't matter to your use-case whether we standardize it (for environments-that-aren't-yours) or not.
That conclusion is incorrect. It does matter to me that we don't
standardize solutions that do not work, when we have existing working
solutions available in the standard, and superior replacements too.
> If your experience matches Gasper's experience and everyone-who-might-object-to-#pragma-once's experience, then it would appear that there's no technical objection to standardizing `#pragma once` for the environments that do support it (i.e. not yours).
I don't know what your definition of "technical" is, but this
objection is technical to the hilt.
Received on 2024-08-28 04:57:14