Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/20/23:59:44
Alan Bostick wrote:
>
> Is that what's going on? That is, does v2.7.2.1 of GCC use a later
> definition of C++ than v2.5.8, one in which 'false' and 'true' are
> reserved words or something similar?
I don't know if the new C++ standards define false and true as reserved,
but I do know that GNU C++ v2.7.2.1 does. You can use anything other
than 'false' and 'true' in your enum type and it will work as desired.
That said, why not have your program detect this condition with a test
for the gcc version and if it is satisfied, use the predefined
constants. It may save you some time. :)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I | fighteer AT cs DOT com |
| "Starting flamewars since 1993" | http://www.cs.com/fighteer |
| *** NOTICE *** This .signature is generated randomly. |
| If you don't like it, sue my computer. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Raw text -