Brad Pierce wrote: > > Gord, > > So would you also be in favor then of removing the `include <filename> > syntax described in 23.3? Well, my inclination is to say "yes". There is nothing else in the LRM that requires it and since package std now exists, it seems unlikely that there would be any compelling reason to have anything in required include files. That isn't a strong argument, since the <...> form could be used in vendor specific ways without having to adopt packages. So, if it came to a vote, I'd vote in favor of removing it at this point, but I don't think that I'd initiate such a vote. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Mon Apr 3 22:21:56 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 03 2006 - 22:22:06 PDT