Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>

Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-12-27T19:17:57Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.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