Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Flash Gordon <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:18:22 +0100
Richard Tobin wrote, On 30/06/07 16:26:
In article <f65s3p$pvf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Army1987 <please.ask@xxxxxx> wrote:
Add: "For the qfloat type, it invades the user name space, since I
was too lazy to call it _QFLT_EPSILON."
I'm not convinced about this. Using a leading underscore on names
intended for the user (rather than the implementation) is not helpful
to the user who wants to use the extensions. We don't see Posix using
underscored identifiers for everything.
Most Unix extensions are not in the C standard headers, rather they are provided in additional headers. Jacob could have provided a qfloat.h header, for example, without problem.
> A better plan is to provide a
switch to disable it. This works perfectly for generic C code.
I agree that a switch to disable it is a good thing.
It might be better to have a single #define of an underscored name -
perhaps _LCC_EXTENSIONS - to control all lcc's extensions, as that
allows the user to turn it on or off for individual include files.
Here you are suggesting using a leading underscore for a name intended for the user ;-)
--
Flash Gordon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Serve Lau
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- References:
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Army1987
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Tobin
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Struct assignment
- Next by Date: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|