[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Does cscc need a pedantic mode ?

From: Fergus Henderson
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Does cscc need a pedantic mode ?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 02:57:52 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On 26-Nov-2002, Stephen Compall <address@hidden> wrote:
> Maybe a *ECMA* compliance mode would better be called -pedantic, and an 
> MS mode would be called -inferior ;) only serious. As long as it's not 
> the default, like -ansi and -pedantic aren't defaults for gcc....

On the contrary, strict ECMA compliance mode should be the default,
and a compiler option should be required to use the extensions.

GCC got this wrong years ago and now can't get it right due to backwards
compatibility requirements.  But there's no such problem for C#.
There's still time to do it right.

Fergus Henderson <address@hidden>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]