Re: [DotGNU]Does cscc need a pedantic mode ?

[Fergus Henderson]

On 26-Nov-2002, Stephen Compall <address@hidden> wrote:
> Maybe a *ECMA* compliance mode would better be called -pedantic, and an 
> MS mode would be called -inferior ;) only serious. As long as it's not 
> the default, like -ansi and -pedantic aren't defaults for gcc....

On the contrary, strict ECMA compliance mode should be the default,
and a compiler option should be required to use the extensions.

GCC got this wrong years ago and now can't get it right due to backwards
compatibility requirements.  But there's no such problem for C#.
There's still time to do it right.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <address@hidden>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.