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

[Stephen Compall]

Gopal V wrote:
> Ok ... having said all that .. do we need a 'pedantic' mode for complete
> and total subservience to what MS CSC does ?

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....

--
Stephen Compall
Also known as S11001001
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://dotgnu.org

But how you can encourage greater production of works in the 1920's by
extending copyright today escapes me, unless they have a time machine
somewhere.
        -- RMS, "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer
                Networks", on retroactive copyright extension by the
                U.S. Government