------=_Part_7600_109470102.1426772503930
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_7601_1618002482.1426772503930"

------=_Part_7601_1618002482.1426772503930
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

I was just wondering whether the idea of standardizing the #warning
preprocessor directive was already brought up?
If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would anybody have objections to
such a proposal? It's not like it's a __must have__,
but it can sometimes be useful and it would most likely be trivial to
implement.

Regards,
Louis

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.

------=_Part_7601_1618002482.1426772503930
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I was just wondering whether the id=
ea of standardizing the #warning preprocessor directive was already brought=
 up?</div><div>If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would anybody have ob=
jections to such a proposal? It's not like it's a __must have__,</div><div>=
but it can sometimes be useful and it would most likely be trivial to imple=
ment.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Louis</div><div><br></div=
></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />

------=_Part_7601_1618002482.1426772503930--
------=_Part_7600_109470102.1426772503930--

.

--20cf302447bb1849790511a49450
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It has been discussed in the past.

https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warning/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ

The proposal went along the lines of standardizing #warning in a manner
similar to that of static_assert, but the issue was that #warning was a
preprocessor macro while static_assert is checked later on by the compiler.

Don't know if it was ever proposed or voted on, though.

2015-03-19 10:41 GMT-03:00 Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering whether the idea of standardizing the #warning
> preprocessor directive was already brought up?
> If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would anybody have objections to
> such a proposal? It's not like it's a __must have__,
> but it can sometimes be useful and it would most likely be trivial to
> implement.
>
> Regards,
> Louis
>
>  --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
> To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
>

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.

--20cf302447bb1849790511a49450
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">It has been discussed in the past.<div><br></div><div><a h=
ref=3D"https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposal=
s/warning/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ">https://groups.google.com=
/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warning/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql=
23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The proposal went along t=
he lines of standardizing #warning in a manner similar to that of static_as=
sert, but the issue was that #warning was a preprocessor macro while static=
_assert is checked later on by the compiler.</div><div><br></div><div>Don&#=
39;t know if it was ever proposed or voted on, though.</div></div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-03-19 10:41 GMT-03:00=
 Louis Dionne <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ldionne.2@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank">ldionne.2@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I was just wondering =
whether the idea of standardizing the #warning preprocessor directive was a=
lready brought up?</div><div>If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would a=
nybody have objections to such a proposal? It&#39;s not like it&#39;s a __m=
ust have__,</div><div>but it can sometimes be useful and it would most like=
ly be trivial to implement.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Lou=
is</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div></fon=
t></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">

<p></p>

-- <br>
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org" target=3D"_=
blank">std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org" target=3D"_blank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/gro=
up/std-proposals/</a>.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />

--20cf302447bb1849790511a49450--

.

------=_Part_495_600289025.1426773689066
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_496_179469569.1426773689066"

------=_Part_496_179469569.1426773689066
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thank you, I'll take a look at the thread. Just skimming though, it seems
like there are already good arguments against such a construct, which makes
me rethink my use case.

Louis

On Thursday, 19 March 2015 09:57:22 UTC-4, Pablo Oliva wrote:
>
> It has been discussed in the past.
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warning/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ
>
> The proposal went along the lines of standardizing #warning in a manner
> similar to that of static_assert, but the issue was that #warning was a
> preprocessor macro while static_assert is checked later on by the compiler.
>
> Don't know if it was ever proposed or voted on, though.
>
> 2015-03-19 10:41 GMT-03:00 Louis Dionne <ldio...@gmail.com <javascript:>>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was just wondering whether the idea of standardizing the #warning
>> preprocessor directive was already brought up?
>> If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would anybody have objections to
>> such a proposal? It's not like it's a __must have__,
>> but it can sometimes be useful and it would most likely be trivial to
>> implement.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Louis
>>
>>  --
>>
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to std-proposal...@isocpp.org <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
>>
>
>

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.

------=_Part_496_179469569.1426773689066
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you, I'll take a look at the thread. Just skimming t=
hough, it seems like there are already good arguments against such a constr=
uct, which makes me rethink my use case.<div><br></div><div>Louis<br><br>On=
 Thursday, 19 March 2015 09:57:22 UTC-4, Pablo Oliva  wrote:<blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">It has been discussed in the=
 past.<div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org=
/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warning/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElc=
KQJ" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https:/=
/groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warning/std-=
proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'h=
ttps://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/std-proposals/warnin=
g/std-proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/bcRxBKElcKQJ';return true;">https://groups.goog=
le.com/a/<wbr>isocpp.org/forum/#!searchin/<wbr>std-proposals/warning/std-<w=
br>proposals/TRtOs3Ql23M/<wbr>bcRxBKElcKQJ</a><br></div><div><br></div><div=
>The proposal went along the lines of standardizing #warning in a manner si=
milar to that of static_assert, but the issue was that #warning was a prepr=
ocessor macro while static_assert is checked later on by the compiler.</div=
><div><br></div><div>Don't know if it was ever proposed or voted on, though=
..</div></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-03-19 10:41 GMT-03:00=
 Louis Dionne <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blan=
k" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"KT4YEFw-VWcJ" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"t=
his.href=3D'javascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:'=
;return true;">ldio...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I was just wondering whethe=
r the idea of standardizing the #warning preprocessor directive was already=
 brought up?</div><div>If so, why was it rejected? Otherwise, would anybody=
 have objections to such a proposal? It's not like it's a __must have__,</d=
iv><div>but it can sometimes be useful and it would most likely be trivial =
to implement.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Louis</div><span>=
<font color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div></font></span></div><span><font colo=
r=3D"#888888">

<p></p>

-- <br>
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"=
KT4YEFw-VWcJ" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';ret=
urn true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">std-proposal.=
...@<wbr>isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_bla=
nk" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"KT4YEFw-VWcJ" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"=
this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:=
';return true;">std-pr...@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=
=3D'http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/';return true=
;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-=
proposals/';return true;">http://groups.google.com/a/<wbr>isocpp.org/group/=
std-<wbr>proposals/</a>.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />

------=_Part_496_179469569.1426773689066--
------=_Part_495_600289025.1426773689066--

.