"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
At 04:13 2005-05-25, Stuart Dootson wrote:
[deleted] One final point - whoever came up with the autolinking scheme (think it was John Maddock?) - thank you very much - that makes life *so* much easier!
Yes, it does! It's a wonder that the committee didn't insist long ago that there be a directive in the language which would pass a name(file?) to the linker for processing.
Maybe because nobody ever wrote a proposal for it. The committee doesn't "insist" on things. We review and approve proposals and process issues (possible problems) with the current standard. Sometimes a few interested people actually work on proposals that make things better. If you're interested in that functionality, write a proposal.
It's not like we haven't been fighting this problem since the late 1970s and it's still a compiler specific thing. Kinda makes you wonder exactly what things the committee deems important,
That's rather needlessly snide, isn't it? All these people volunteering their time to make _your_ C++ better, trying to work on so many things that so many people who *don't* volunteer their time think are really important, and all you can do is wonder out loud what we think is important? If you think it's important, make a proposal and it will get addressed.
and why (we STILL don't have #pragma once as a "standard" requirement).
Well, one reason I can think of -- aside from the obvious one that we haven't had a proposal to consider -- is that #pragma is by definition reserved for implementation-specific hooks. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com