Re: RFC: FSF GCC, #import (and #pragma once)

[Adam Fedor]

David Ayers wrote:
> Hello again...
> hello Nicola,
>
> (if I can't bark up the gdb tree, I'll try gcc ;-) ) no seriously...
>
> I'm meaning to post this to the gcc list and just wanted to give people 
> here (esp. Nicola) a chance to comment orvoice any reservations of it 
> being counter productive.

It's probably useful to at least make your opinion knows. However see 
comments below.



> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Hello,
>
> Please excuse me for not replying to the original thread, as I'm not on 
> the list, just lurking through the archives.
>
> I must admit that I'm not sure I understand the recent discussion about 
> the semantic subtleties of the #import directive.  If I have understood 
> the past development correctly, the FSF GCC Team (I'm not sure which 
> whether this was a general consensus or a SC decision) had already 
> identified #import as problematic and discouraged it's usage through 
> deprecation with the intent for removal.  Reality has it, that there is 
> a large amount of active (mostly ObjC) projects that rely on this 
> directive, with the semantics of whatever the existing implementations 
> actually implement.  These are largely projects that are expecting the 
> semantics currently implemented by Apple's GCC fork, whatever they may be.
>
> If Geoffery Keating is working on syncing the implementation of Apple's 
> fork with the FSF GCC, then isn't what ever he implements "perfect" by 
> definition?  Not because it catches all edge cases that anyone may think 
> of and that some might interpret differently than others, but because 
> the FSF GCC and Apple's fork will implement the *same* semantics, what 
> ever they may be.

I think it was Geoffery that suggested removing import in the first 
place. Although this was part of a list of alternatives, non of which he 
considered appealing...