Re: [lmi] Forcing linking of the library modules (again)

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:35:48 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2014-10-04 22:20Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:56:09 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> > 
GC> > GC> On 2014-10-04 14:52Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > GC> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:20:57 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> 
wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> > GC> I'm puzzled. I think I preserved the original's substance faithfully, 
but...
GC> > GC> 
GC> > GC> >  But I'd like to notice that there is a small problem with the new
GC> > GC> > LMI_FORCE_LINKING_{IN,EX}_SITU() macros: they are inconsistent in 
their
GC> > GC> > handling of the subsequent semicolon as the former requires it, 
while the
GC> > GC> > latter does not.
GC> 
GC> I think we went astray here.

 No, not we, just me. Sorry for misleading you, I misread the first macro
definition.

GC> We were discussing the original commit:
GC>   
http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/lmi/trunk/force_linking.hpp?annotate=5957&root=lmi
GC> Wouldn't it be correct to say instead that neither macro required
GC> a semicolon?

 Yes, this is indeed correct.

GC> It seems to me that Vaclav had it right all along.

 I'd still prefer to have (mandatory) semicolons after macros rather than
not to have them at all, but it's a slight preference and probably not
worth spending even more time on.

 Sorry again for wasting your time on this,
VZ