220 34 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Anton Golov Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: #pragma once Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:20:36 +0100 Lines: 88 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <904ddcc3-2deb-4780-afac-cb019457323d@isocpp.org> <6517fd7d-20b5-4183-881d-e4e451695e8e@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c81e6bca11a04ce365f39 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1352632839 20742 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2012 11:20:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:20:39 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCX5JN4H3AEBBBUU72CAKGQEGNACTSI@isocpp.org Sun Nov 11 12:20:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f198.google.com ([209.85.217.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TXVaq-0001kn-Oe for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:20:48 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f198.google.com with SMTP id n10sf3831832lbo.9 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.180.96.6 with SMTP id do6mr1769448wib.1.1352632839304; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:39 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.78.169 with SMTP id c9ls4107303wix.2.gmail; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.216.142.160 with SMTP id i32mr5836770wej.71.1352632836770; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.216.142.160 with SMTP id i32mr5836769wej.71.1352632836733; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t33si1967749wen.90.2012.11.11.03.20.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jesyspa@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.179; Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hm6so1420099wib.14 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.180.74.108 with SMTP id s12mr2749465wiv.12.1352632836595; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.216.238.206 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:20:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6517fd7d-20b5-4183-881d-e4e451695e8e@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jesyspa@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jesyspa@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jesyspa@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:34 Archived-At: --f46d043c81e6bca11a04ce365f39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > how about making it implicit and making multiple inclusion > definable by some pragma... > it is a breaking change but tbh ppl that rely on multiple inclusion > (afaik VT emulation in VS for example) are smart enough to fix > their files in no time. Wouldn't disabling multiple inclusion by default break inclusion-based X macros, though? On 11 November 2012 05:20, wrote: > how about making it implicit and making multiple inclusion definable by > some pragma... > it is a breaking change but tbh ppl that rely on multiple inclusion(afaik > VT emulation in VS for example) are smart enough to fix their files in no > time. > Call me crazy but I consider include guards one of the few remaining > things that make C++ feel like an old language. > > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:19:01 PM UTC+2, Mark Ingram wrote: >> >> As #pragma once is supported by many compilersas a non-standard add-on, how about it being made into the actual standard >> so that we can rely on it for cross-platform development? It's much neater >> than ugly include guards. > > -- > > > > -- --f46d043c81e6bca11a04ce365f39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> how about making it implicit and making multiple inclusion
<= div>> definable by some pragma...
>=A0it is a breaking chan= ge but tbh ppl that rely on multiple inclusion
> (afaik VT emu= lation in VS for example) are smart enough to fix
> their files in no time.

Wouldn't disablin= g multiple inclusion by default break inclusion-based X macros, though?

On 11 November 20= 12 05:20, <nx02columbia@gmail.com> wrote:
how about making it implicit and making mult= iple inclusion definable by some pragma...
it is a breaking change but t= bh ppl that rely on multiple inclusion(afaik VT emulation in VS for example= ) are smart enough to fix their files in no time.
Call me crazy but I consider include guards one of the few remaining things= that make C++ feel like an old language.


On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:19:01 PM UTC+2, Mark In= gram wrote:
As #pragma once is supported by many compilers as a non-standar= d add-on, how about it being made into the actual standard so that we can r= ely on it for cross-platform development? It's much neater than ugly in= clude guards.

--
=A0
=A0
=A0

--
 
 
 
--f46d043c81e6bca11a04ce365f39-- .