David Hopwood schrieb:
>>> (C++ allows restating of typedefs; if C allows it, that should be
>>> something like):
>> C also allows this; [...]
>
> This is nitpicking, since you agreed the change to the PEP, but are you
> sure that C allows this?
I was sure, but I was also wrong. Thanks for pointi
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> David Abrahams schrieb:
>
>>(C++ allows restating of typedefs; if C allows it, that should be
>>something like):
>
> C also allows this; [...]
This is nitpicking, since you agreed the change to the PEP, but are you
sure that C allows this?
>From C99 + TC1 + TC2 (http://
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> c. anyway you'll get a nasty warning, which for some people will be
>> just as bad as an error
>
> Try for yourself. You get the warning only if the redefinition is not
> identical to the original definition (or an object-like macro is
> redefined
David Abrahams schrieb:
> b. We were using C++, which IIRC does not allow such redefinition
You remember incorrectly. 16.3/2 (cpp.replace) says
# An identifier currently defined as a macro without use of lparen (an
# object-like macro) may be redefined by another #define preprocessing
# directive
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams schrieb:
>> #if PY_VERSION_HEX < 0x0205
>> typedef int Py_ssize_t;
>> #define PY_SSIZE_T_MAX INT_MAX
>> #define PY_SSIZE_T_MIN INT_MIN
>> #endif
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this advice could lead to library
>>
David Abrahams schrieb:
> #if PY_VERSION_HEX < 0x0205
> typedef int Py_ssize_t;
> #define PY_SSIZE_T_MAX INT_MAX
> #define PY_SSIZE_T_MIN INT_MIN
> #endif
>
> I just wanted to point out that this advice could lead to library
> header collisions when multiple 3rd parties decide to fol
