Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: gcc and 'include' Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 23:12:08 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 25 Message-ID: <87h5pn2taf.fsf@example.invalid> References: <10q4ceb$38i2d$1@dont-email.me> <87ikaiw5g0.fsf@example.invalid> <10q5nnr$3l3lc$1@dont-email.me> <10q6snp$2nka$5@dont-email.me> <10q6uv4$419b$1@dont-email.me> <20260328203718.00005c70@yahoo.com> <10q96uf$rjbn$1@dont-email.me> <10q9t6d$2p36t$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10qc632$1uds9$1@dont-email.me> <86mrzp1oql.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10qdujq$2g7uj$1@dont-email.me> <87v7edtafm.fsf@example.invalid> <10qenu5$2q4nh$1@dont-email.me> <87qzp0u7py.fsf@example.invalid> <10qg89b$38lit$1@dont-email.me> <87mrznu39c.fsf@example.invalid> <86qzorxw1t.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 06:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c1a0ff6bd907a37b4d4b0ba219c244b5"; logging-data="2765512"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0ULxMijtFAW2jZy2Wr83t" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XX0F3S3bWdh80eVUJ6jvWyqzvaw= sha1:G9y2V169Y1nq4G96VgeWFPT1EjU= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397406 Tim Rentsch writes: > Keith Thompson writes: [...] >> I don't disagree. I would have preferred a requirement that any >> translation unit that violates a syntax rule or constraing must be >> rejected. [...] > > Ridiculous. Such a rule would effectively preclude many useful > extensions, which would have the effect of rendering the provision > allowing extensions pointless. I'll modify my suggestion. Any translation unit that violates a syntax rule or constraint must be rejected unless the violation is apart of a documented extension. (I'm certain there's a better way to word that.) And of course compilers could have non-conforming modes in which they accept anything they like. I do not expect C to adopt such a rule. It's merely what I would have preferred. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */