Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
>> Why not
>>
>>   extern(ecc) void function() foo;
>>
>> where ecc would resolve to Windows or C.
>>
>> This of course requires some tweaking of the compiler, but it might be worth it.
> 
> Do you mean "ecc" being a magic identifier that the compiler sets to Windows on Windows, and C otherwise? That might be a pretty good idea. Why "ecc", though? It doesn't jump out at me what it might mean.

I wanted the discussion to stay with the (dis)merits of the idea itself, and not (as usual) begin with bickering about the choice of word.

For a similar reason I avoided taking a stance on whether ecc should be automatic, user settable or user overridable. (Pascal comes to mind, but you murdered that in a follow-up post. ;-) )

BTW, what are the implications of an automatic-only ecc for cross compiling with gdc?

(I thought it was obvious: ecc for External Calling Convention. :-) )

> How about "System" ?

I'm not entirely opposed to System. Still, System is a big word.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:44 +0300, Georg Wrede wrote:

>> How about "System" ?
> 
> I'm not entirely opposed to System. Still, System is a big word.

Especially when there are so many great keywords that we can further overload <G>

  extern(auto)
  extern(default)
  extern(static)
  extern(type)
  extern(override)
  . . .


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:47:32 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:44 +0300, Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
>>> How about "System" ?
>> 
>> I'm not entirely opposed to System. Still, System is a big word.
> 
> Especially when there are so many great keywords that we can further overload <G>
> 
>   extern(auto)
>   extern(default)
>   extern(static)
>   extern(type)
>   extern(override)
>   . . .

Damn ... I forgot a couple ...

  extern(extern)
  extern()

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"