Re: [sv-ec] Problems with Appendix D - "Linked List"

Brad Pierce wrote:

> I thought that <> could not be used for a file of "the 101 most useful
> macros", but was restricted to header files mandated by the standard?

That is true.

The main caveat is that it wouldn't surprise me if vendors might
want to have non-standard include files as extensions in this space.
Retaining the <...> form would help to indicate that a distributed include
file was being used.

I don't have a strong opinion in either case since
vendor solutions usually have other methods of specifying
include paths.

Gord.

> Such a usage of <> would be very convenient, because macros cannot be
> distributed using the package mechanism.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:22 PM
> To: Brad Pierce
> Cc: SV_EC List
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Problems with Appendix D - "Linked List"
> 
> 
> 
> 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.com