Re: Contents of <confdefs.h> for C++

[Braden McDaniel]

On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 17:15, Walter E. Brown wrote:
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> It appears we have different viewpoints of what needs a rationale.  I,
> and a substantial portion of the C++ programming community, tend to
> take what may be termed a minimalist view:  why should I have to pay
> for a feature I don't want and have no need for?  Others, at least in
> the autoconf world, it appears, regard the use of exit() as so
> fundamental that they are always willing to pay for it, and to force
> others to do so, as well.

[snip]

As a C++ user and an autoconf user, I believe you are dramatically
overstating your case.

> Suppose my program defines entities whose names clash with names
> declared in <stdlib.h>.  While it is certainly arguable whether this
> constitutes good practice, it seems equally certain that such programs
> comply with the relevant language standard(s).

I'm not sure what led you to believe that it's "arguable" as to whether
this is good practice. IME, it is universally condemned. But there are
plenty of silly and abusive things you can do that fall within "the
relevant language standard(s)"; I'm not convinced that's an adequate
acid test of what autoconf should support. It sounds to me as if you (or
the libraries you're using) are doing something foolish, and you deserve
to get burned. Your identifiers should be in a namespace.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <address@hidden>
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <address@hidden>