C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names Goto page 1, 2  Next          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Tom Einertson Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names Some of the code we write at my company runs on both UNIX systems (mostly AIX) and Microsoft Windows systems. The code which was originally written on UNIX contains a number of Posix function calls, many of which compile and execute properly on Windows. We have recently begun using the Microsoft Visual Studio .net 2005 compiler and we now getting the following warning message about a number of Posix calls. ..\wuu.c(790) : warning C4996: 'unlink' was declared deprecated C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(290) : see declaration of 'unlink' Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. Instead, use the ISO C++ conformant name: _unlink. See online help for details.' Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". PS - Even after reading the charter of several newsgroups it wasn't clear to me where a question like this belongs, so I cross-posted this to a Windows newsgroup, figuring perhaps people there have heard an explanation from Microsoft which I missed, and a C++ and UNIX newsgroup, figuring you might have some insight on the issue of ISO C++ and Posix names. If there are more relevant groups, please redirect the discussion as you see fit. -- Tom Einertson E-mail: tome@siemens-emis.com SIEMENS Power Transmission & Distribution Phone: (952) 607-2244 Energy Management & Automation Division Fax: (952) 607-2018 10900 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 400 Minnetonka, MN, 55305 --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Dilip Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names "Tom Einertson" wrote: Quote: Some of the code we write at my company runs on both UNIX systems (mostly AIX) and Microsoft Windows systems. The code which was originally written on UNIX contains a number of Posix function calls, many of which compile and execute properly on Windows. We have recently begun using the Microsoft Visual Studio .net 2005 compiler and we now getting the following warning message about a number of Posix calls. .\wuu.c(790) : warning C4996: 'unlink' was declared deprecated C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(290) : see declaration of 'unlink' Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. Instead, use the ISO C++ conformant name: _unlink. See online help for details.' This is definitely confusing. A few months ago a similar thread started in c.l.c++.m. Here is a link to it: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/msg/aeaf2aac72aa1312 Not sure if its the same thing though. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top P.J. Plauger Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names ""Tom Einertson"" <tome@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message news:YMqdnenWtqO8n0beRVn-iQ (AT) comcast (DOT) com... Quote: Some of the code we write at my company runs on both UNIX systems (mostly AIX) and Microsoft Windows systems. The code which was originally written on UNIX contains a number of Posix function calls, many of which compile and execute properly on Windows. We have recently begun using the Microsoft Visual Studio .net 2005 compiler and we now getting the following warning message about a number of Posix calls. .\wuu.c(790) : warning C4996: 'unlink' was declared deprecated C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(290) : see declaration of 'unlink' Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. Instead, use the ISO C++ conformant name: _unlink. See online help for details.' Does anyone know what the reason for this is? Microsoft decided to add a whole slew of new warnings with V8 (VC++ 2005). They've taken no small amount of heat for using the phrase "declared deprecated" since a) "deprecated" is a term of art from ISO standards, and b) Microsoft is doing the deprecating here, not ISO. Your best bet is probably to make it standard practice to disable this warning for all compiles. In any event, unlink is a perfectly fine function to call in a combined Standard C/Posix environment. It's not okay in Standard C alone, but you probably don't care about that. Quote: I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". Both Standard C and Standard C++ let the implementation define external symbols with a leading underscore, as conforming extensions. But "unlink" invades the space of names reserved to the programmer. HTH, P.J. Plauger Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Jerry Coffin Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names "Tom Einertson" wrote: [ ... ] Quote: Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". IMO, this is simply a mistake on MS' part. First of all, this only matters at all if the name is declared in a header that's defined as part of the C++ standard in the first place. Second, if that was the case, it would probably need to become _Unlink or __unlink (though, of course, variations like un__link are also possible). -- Later, Jerry. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Guy Harrison Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names Tom Einertson wrote: Quote: Some of the code we write at my company runs on both UNIX systems (mostly AIX) and Microsoft Windows systems. The code which was originally written on UNIX contains a number of Posix function calls, many of which compile and execute properly on Windows. We have recently begun using the Microsoft Visual Studio .net 2005 compiler and we now getting the following warning message about a number of Posix calls. .\wuu.c(790) : warning C4996: 'unlink' was declared deprecated C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(290) : see declaration of 'unlink' Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. Instead, use the ISO C++ conformant name: _unlink. See online help for details.' Strictly speaking I guess this is correct, albeit typical misleading M$ waffle. "unlink" is may be depreciated (it never could work under windoze) but iirc the language states leading underscores are reserved for the implementation. Quote: Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". You can likely replace "unlink" with "remove" (or std::remove). The semantics are different however - *nix can unlink a file which is open whereas windoze cannot. Under unix a file/folder is trashed when the last process with a handle to it, dies. Think tempfiles... //create file //unlink //carry on accessing it //(process dies, kernel removes file from disk if last handle ..whereas windoze will barf. Quote: PS - Even after reading the charter of several newsgroups it wasn't clear to me where a question like this belongs, so I cross-posted this to a Windows newsgroup, figuring perhaps people there have heard an explanation from Microsoft which I missed, and a C++ and UNIX newsgroup, figuring you might have some insight on the issue of ISO C++ and Posix names. If there are more relevant groups, please redirect the discussion as you see fit. Any generic group will suffice - look for "inode" references in manuals. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Tom Einertson Guest Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names ""P.J. Plauger"" <pjp (AT) dinkumware (DOT) com> wrote in message news:tq2dnc2pUadY5EbeRVn-tw (AT) giganews (DOT) com... Quote: Microsoft decided to add a whole slew of new warnings with V8 (VC++ 2005). They've taken no small amount of heat for using the phrase "declared deprecated" since a) "deprecated" is a term of art from ISO standards, and b) Microsoft is doing the deprecating here, not ISO. Your best bet is probably to make it standard practice to disable this warning for all compiles. I don't fault them for using the term deprecated, just in trying to blame it on ISO C++. If Microsoft decides they might not support some interface in the future that's up to them. But the error message seems to imply that they were forced to do this in order to become C++ conformant. Quote: In any event, unlink is a perfectly fine function to call in a combined Standard C/Posix environment. It's not okay in Standard C alone, but you probably don't care about that. Both Standard C and Standard C++ let the implementation define external symbols with a leading underscore, as conforming extensions. But "unlink" invades the space of names reserved to the programmer. It's clear that as the supplier of the compiler Microsoft has the option to use names beginning with an underscore for conforming extensions. But "unlink" is an operating system interface, and there has always been overlap between the names assigned for operating system interfaces and user programs. I can't find anything, though, that REQUIRES Microsoft to use leading underscores in the names of operating system interfaces. I also notice that they only declared Posix names without leading underscores to be non-conformant. We don't get errors saying that Microsoft Win32 system interfaces such as CreateFile needs to be named _CreateFile in order to be ISO C++ conformant. -- Tom Einertson E-mail: tome@siemens-emis.com SIEMENS Power Transmission & Distribution Phone: (952) 607-2244 Energy Management & Automation Division Fax: (952) 607-2018 10900 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 400 Minnetonka, MN, 55305 --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Rob Williscroft Guest Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names Jerry Coffin wrote in news:1138443947.035791.316900 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com in comp.std.c++: Quote: "Tom Einertson" wrote: [ ... ] Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". IMO, this is simply a mistake on MS' part. First of all, this only matters at all if the name is declared in a header that's defined as part of the C++ standard in the first place. It's defined in stdio.h, so this is the case here. Quote: Second, if that was the case, it would probably need to become _Unlink or __unlink (though, of course, variations like un__link are also possible). Names begining with a single underscore are reserved for the implementation in the global namespace, so Microsoft are moving ::unlink to the implementations reserved set of names by prepending a single underscore, or in there words making it an "ISO C++ conformant name". This program will produce the warning: #include <cstdio> int main() { unlink( "c:\\please-delete-me.txt" ); } But I only get the warning if use unlink(), So (IMO) this warning is useful as its telling me my programme won't compile under the next version of VC++. Rob. -- http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/ --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Guest Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names "P.J. Plauger" wrote: Quote: ""Tom Einertson"" <tome@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message news:YMqdnenWtqO8n0beRVn-iQ (AT) comcast (DOT) com... I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". Both Standard C and Standard C++ let the implementation define external symbols with a leading underscore, as conforming extensions. But "unlink" invades the space of names reserved to the programmer. Um, doesn't this say that only an implementor of C++ should use the name "_unlink" - and that a vendor neutral API would not be ISO conformant were it to use this name? -- Alan Griffiths --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Tom Einertson Guest Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names "Rob Williscroft" <rtw (AT) freenet (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:Xns975A7BE66BEDDrtwfreenetREMOVEcouk (AT) 216 (DOT) 196.109.145... Quote: Jerry Coffin wrote in news:1138443947.035791.316900 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com in comp.std.c++: "Tom Einertson" wrote: [ ... ] Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". IMO, this is simply a mistake on MS' part. First of all, this only matters at all if the name is declared in a header that's defined as part of the C++ standard in the first place. It's defined in stdio.h, so this is the case here. ... Names begining with a single underscore are reserved for the implementation in the global namespace, so Microsoft are moving ::unlink to the implementations reserved set of names by prepending a single underscore, or in there words making it an "ISO C++ conformant name". I didn't realize that Microsoft defined unlink in stdio.h. On most UNIXes, it is defined in unistd.h. That seems to explain what's going on here, though. Presumably Microsoft realized that they shouldn't have non-standard extensions in a standard header file unless the name began with an underscore, and this was their solution. Unfortunately they have fixed the problem in the wrong way (or at least in the most inconvenient way possible for their users). Why didn't they just move the prototype from stdio.h to a .h file which is not defined in the C++ standard? Putting it in a file named unistd.h would seem the obvious choice, since doing so would simplify porting of UNIX code to Windows. Or instead of moving it immediately to the new file, they could have defined the prototype in both .h files during the transition period and used the pre-processor to prevent duplicate definitions. Microsoft already went to the work of flagging these functions for warnings. Instead of warning you change the function name, couldn't they instead have warned you to #include the correct file if you hadn't done so? That doesn't seem that difficult to implement and would move users toward correct usage. Quote: But I only get the warning if use unlink(), So (IMO) this warning is useful as its telling me my programme won't compile under the next version of VC++. Normally I wouldn't care about such an issue. I would just change the name to the one Microsoft wants me to use. Unfortunately in this case doing so will make the code so it won't compile on UNIX any more. So what we had before was a harmless non-compliance with the C++ spec. What we have now is something which will make it more difficult to maintain a common code base on Windows and UNIX. -- Tom Einertson E-mail: tome@siemens-emis.com SIEMENS Power Transmission & Distribution Phone: (952) 607-2244 Energy Management & Automation Division Fax: (952) 607-2018 10900 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 400 Minnetonka, MN, 55305 Quote: --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Chris Hills Guest Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names In article <1138443947.035791.316900 (AT) g47g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>, Jerry Coffin <jerry.coffin (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes Quote: "Tom Einertson" wrote: [ ... ] Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". IMO, this is simply a mistake on MS' part. It's not a mistake.... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris (AT) phaedsys (DOT) org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top P.J. Plauger Guest Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names <devnull (AT) octopull (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1138546549.729355.195400 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com... Quote: "P.J. Plauger" wrote: ""Tom Einertson"" <tome@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message news:YMqdnenWtqO8n0beRVn-iQ (AT) comcast (DOT) com... I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". Both Standard C and Standard C++ let the implementation define external symbols with a leading underscore, as conforming extensions. But "unlink" invades the space of names reserved to the programmer. Um, doesn't this say that only an implementor of C++ should use the name "_unlink" - and that a vendor neutral API would not be ISO conformant were it to use this name? Basically, yes. I'm the guy who insisted back in 1983 that the space of names available to a C program be partitioned into: a) those defined by the implementation for the benefit of the programmer (such as printf) b) those reserved to the programmer (such as foo) c) those reserved to the implementation (such as _unlink) We knew even then that "the implementation" was too monolithic -- often more than one source supplies bits of the implementation -- but that was the best we could do at the time. Standard C++ has introduced namespaces to help, but they have achieved only a fraction of their stated goals. (That's what happens when you standardize a paper tiger.) In this particular case, Posix supplies a list of category (a) names (such as unlink) that you should get defined when and only when you include certain headers. Since the C Standard stole its headers from Unix, which is the same source as for Posix, some of those headers overlap historically. Nevertheless, compiler warnings should have some way of taking into account whether the supported environment is "pure" Standard C++ (a Platonic ideal) or a mixed C/C++/Posix environment. The current attempt by Microsoft to help us poor programmers fails to take that into account. It insists on treating unlink as a category (b) name, which is myopic. Still another wrinkle is what to do about category (c) names, which was the nub of your original question. We implementers are still in the Bad Old Days where we have to duke it out with other implementers for the use of the implementation-reserved space of names. You try adding _unlink and see what happens when you test under a given compiler. (Just recently, in fact, one of our larger embedded compiler customers asked us to rename our macro _POSIX_C_LIB, because Posix insists that all _POSIX* names are theirs.) But at least that reserves the worst problems to us Trained Professionals. We just have to get our stories straight. P.J. Plauger Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Chris Hills Guest Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names In article <YMqdnenWtqO8n0beRVn-iQ (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, Tom Einertson <tome@siemens-emis.com> writes Quote: Some of the code we write at my company runs on both UNIX systems (mostly AIX) and Microsoft Windows systems. The code which was originally written on UNIX contains a number of Posix function calls, many of which compile and execute properly on Windows. We have recently begun using the Microsoft Visual Studio .net 2005 compiler and we now getting the following warning message about a number of Posix calls. .\wuu.c(790) : warning C4996: 'unlink' was declared deprecated C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(290) : see declaration of 'unlink' Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. Instead, use the ISO C++ conformant name: _unlink. See online help for details.' Does anyone know what the reason for this is? I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". All will be explained. http://www.octopull.demon.co.uk/editorial/OverloadEditorial200601.pdf -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris (AT) phaedsys (DOT) org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Chris Hills Guest Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names In article <iNGdnTGii-5GpUDeRVn-qA (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, Tom Einertson <tome@siemens-emis.com> writes Quote: Normally I wouldn't care about such an issue. I would just change the name to the one Microsoft wants me to use. Unfortunately in this case doing so will make the code so it won't compile on UNIX any more. I think the reasons for the MS "mistake" are becoming clear..... Quote: So what we had before was a harmless non-compliance with the C++ spec. What we have now is something which will make it more difficult to maintain a common code base on Windows and UNIX. Yes. SO why use Unix? It is not an approved MS OS what is more Unix does not conform to the ISO Safe C or ISO Safe C++ Libraries..... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris (AT) phaedsys (DOT) org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Tom Einertson Guest Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:00 am    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names ""P.J. Plauger"" <pjp (AT) dinkumware (DOT) com> wrote in message news:37-dnTQ056haQ0DeRVn-pw (AT) giganews (DOT) com... Quote: devnull (AT) octopull (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1138546549.729355.195400 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com... "P.J. Plauger" wrote: ""Tom Einertson"" <tome@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message news:YMqdnenWtqO8n0beRVn-iQ (AT) comcast (DOT) com... I've read every C and C++ book I own and searched the internet trying to find an explanation for this change. For the life of me, I can't see how "_unlink" is any more ISO C++ conformant than "unlink". Both Standard C and Standard C++ let the implementation define external symbols with a leading underscore, as conforming extensions. But "unlink" invades the space of names reserved to the programmer. Um, doesn't this say that only an implementor of C++ should use the name "_unlink" - and that a vendor neutral API would not be ISO conformant were it to use this name? Basically, yes. I'm the guy who insisted back in 1983 that the space of names available to a C program be partitioned into: a) those defined by the implementation for the benefit of the programmer (such as printf) b) those reserved to the programmer (such as foo) c) those reserved to the implementation (such as _unlink) ... In this particular case, Posix supplies a list of category (a) names (such as unlink) that you should get defined when and only when you include certain headers. Since the C Standard stole its headers from Unix, which is the same source as for Posix, some of those headers overlap historically. Nevertheless, compiler warnings should have some way of taking into account whether the supported environment is "pure" Standard C++ (a Platonic ideal) or a mixed C/C++/Posix environment. The current attempt by Microsoft to help us poor programmers fails to take that into account. It insists on treating unlink as a category (b) name, which is myopic. Actually it seems to me that previous versions of Visual Studio treated unlink as a category (a) name, but now Microsoft wants to treat it as a category (c) name (ie, _unlink), so they have introduced warnings to try to get everyone to use _unlink instead. Of course there's not good reason Just slightly off the main topic of this thread, there's also the situation with all the Visual Studio warning messages telling you that all your favorite C/C++ functions are insecure and you should use the new and improved Microsoft-provided secure interfaces instead. Just because Microsoft apparently couldn't write secure code with the existing functions doesn't mean that other people can't. Beyond that issue, who made Microsoft the software police anyway? There's just a certain arrogance about the whole thing. I really wonder how this happened anyway. Did the Visual Studio team really not think through the implications of what they were doing when they introduced these warning messages? Or did they think it through and decide to go ahead anyway? Or is this all the work of one rogue programmer who wasn't adequately supervised? Or for you conspiracy buffs out there, did they do it to try to push people away from standard C++ interfaces and get them to use Microsoft proprietary interfaces instead? Don't any of the developers from Microsoft C++ hang out in this newsgroup? I haven't seen any postings on this thread from anyone with @microsoft.com in their e-mail address. If there is a more benign explanation for this mess, I'd like to hear it. -- Tom Einertson E-mail: tome@siemens-emis.com SIEMENS Power Transmission & Distribution Phone: (952) 607-2244 Energy Management & Automation Division Fax: (952) 607-2018 10900 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 400 Minnetonka, MN, 55305 --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Dilip Guest Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Visual Studio and ISO C++ Names "Tom Einertson" wrote: Quote: Don't any of the developers from Microsoft C++ hang out in this newsgroup? I haven't seen any postings on this thread from anyone with @microsoft.com in their e-mail address. If there is a more benign explanation for this mess, I'd like to hear it. Most of the Microsoft language lawyers and MVPs hang out at microsoft.public.vc.language. I have taken the liberty of cross-posting to that newsgroup also. Try re-starting this thread over there. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.