Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: "Serve Lau" <aser@xxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:55:40 +0200
"Flash Gordon" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:urfil4xnvp.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 ;-)
The identifier is provided by the implementation, so theres no problem
.
- References:
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Army1987
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Tobin
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Flash Gordon
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Struct assignment
- Next by Date: Re: segmentation fault
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|