On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:16:11PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more > generic option name, > such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?
My preference is to avoid using the -fdecc-extensions and use a more explanative & generic option name. But my (non-native English speaker) understanding of -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions is misleading: I read it to allow anonymous functions (think of lambda) which happends to be variadic, which is not what your patch gives. What about -fallow-fully-variadic-functions or -fallow-very-variadic-functions ? And we could also imagine having a GCC #pragma which change the acceptance of variadic functions. By the way, I also regret the name of -fms-extensions option; http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html#Unnamed-Fields because accepting an unamed field should not be percieved as MicroSoft specific, but as a unseful language extension. [My point is that language extensions should not be enabled by options containing a brand or a trademark which suggested them, they should be named by options which are evocative of what the extension provides.] Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
