benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) (11/29/90)
2.1 makes significant changes in name scoping rules. In particular,
class x {
enum y {a, b, c} Y;
};
results in x::y as a typename in 2.1 and y as a typename in 2.0.
We need to have some code that is equally compilable by 2.0 and 2.1,
and I bet we're not alone.
It would be handy if the community would agree on a #define that
distinguishes 2.1 from 2.0.
How about
__cplusplus21
indicating a 2.1 compatible compiler?
--
Benson I. Margulieschip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/05/90)
Cfront 2.1 features aren't necessarily GraultCorp 2.1 features. The
ifdef should be based on the real change: compliance with the ARM.
Since it's too late for that, I'd suggest an externally defined macro
until the ANSI committee invents a macro to indicate conformance.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"I'm really sorry I feel this need to insult some people..."
-- John F. Haugh II (He thinks HE'S sorry?)