> Listening to feeble strawman argument attempts at insisting how the
arguments against #pragma once are invalid, even though they
demonstrably aren't?

Please do elaborate on how abusing the build/filesystem where you end up with multiple conflicting definitions of what you mean when you say "include <X>" for the same translation unit isn't a self-inflicted wound?


________________________________
From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 8:20:41 AM
To: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>
Cc: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Revising #pragma once

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 09:10, Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I could equally argue that I have some library where updating to anything above C++14 is a problem in my case.

Maybe you could, but I wouldn't describe that as arguing _equally_,
considering that there's quite a bit more detail than that
provided in the descriptions that explain why #pragma once doesn't work.

>In that case we can all just pack up, updating the standard is pointless, what are we even doing on this mailing list?

Listening to feeble strawman argument attempts at insisting how the
arguments against #pragma once are invalid, even though they
demonstrably aren't?