* Jakub Jelinek: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Can we remove __has_include__? > > No. > >> Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable >> because for some reason, people write __has_include__ instead of >> __has_include. (I don't think there is any difference.) > > __has_include needs to be a macro, while __has_include__ is a weirdo > builtin that does all the magic. But one needs to be able to > #ifdef __has_include > etc.
Why doesn't a synthetic #define __has_include __has_include work? Thanks, Florian
