Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:33:43 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: wctype.h and ctype.h
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990517100828.2286C-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990518133316.24330E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 17 May 1999, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > How about including ctype.h from wctype.h?  Will that be good enough?
> 
> That's forbidden by the standard, by induction from what I said above. No
> standard header inclusion is allowed to effect inclusion of any other
> standard header. 

Actually, we already do that in several other cases anyway.

> Together, these two clauses mean: standard library function names are only
> reserved *if* you #include the standard header that defines them.

The question is: why did whoever created wctype.h need to include
ctype.ha in it?  Does Addendum 1 say something that implies that
including wctype.h pulls in the definitions of is* functions?  

If not, we could simply stop including ctype.ha.  However, I can
hardly believe that the minimal implementation of wctype.h would go to
such lengths unless some application expected that.  The comments
there say something about STL's basic_string; could someone please
look into libstdc++ sources and see what is this all about?