| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Elliot Chance <elliotchance(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Date: | 2010-12-27 19:17:57 |
| Message-ID: | 28063.1293477477@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I hope that we don't make the mistake of not checking for collisions
> with C++0x keywords, for which GCC 4.3+ has partial support. The new
> standard is almost complete, so it will probably become a lot more
> relevant soon. There are quite a few new keywords in C++0x, including:
[ shrug... ] If it's not a keyword according to popularly available
tools, then I really have zero interest in worrying about it. This
is an exercise in making the headers useful in practice, not in academic
standards conformance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2010-12-27 19:38:17 | Re: Working with v8.3.4 DB using v9.0.1 software |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-12-27 19:13:33 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-12-27 19:48:50 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-12-27 19:13:33 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |