|
|
> Your proposal requires determining the mangling from the return type
> and the ifunc attribute argument.
That's true. You could alternatively allow/require a protoyped-name inside
the "" to resolve overloading.
> That's even more weird than HJs proposal.
I have to disagree thoroughly.
> No, I'm not serious.
Your example is macroably identical to HJ's proposal.
I'm glad to see that you agree it's a laughably insane syntax. ;-)
> Keep it simple please, build on existing features.
What I have proposed for C is the most like existing features such as
alias. HJ's proposal is the severe departure IMHO. The natural extension
of the C syntax I proposed to C++ is indeed more bizarre, because, well,
it's C++, so what do you expect?
Thanks,
Roland
|
|