Builtin friendly interface as includes about gmqcc HOT 4 CLOSED

I should note that [[extension]] is the C++11 attribute syntax (I don't actually care how that's implemented) It could be in the form of an attribute(extension) or literally anything else that seems less ambiguous.

from gmqcc.

I'm against making an include file change the behaviour of some keyword.

Actually I'm even against having standard-includes at all, but we can talk about adding #pragma to enable/disable them. (preferably though a simple compiler-switch should do the job)

from gmqcc.

I don't mind the pragma concept to enable extensions, but I much fathom that we implement [[extension]] code specifiers for any internal code (perhaps future standard library/interface code we may add). They're great for various hinters to say "hey Mr compiler, instead of searching the entire scope for variables of that name, then hitting the global scope, searching for X ... instead just hit the extensions subsystem and check if it's an extension" (which would save some time on contention). Of course they also go hand-in-hand with SAL if someone ever wants to write a nice integrated development environment for QuakeC (which I might even do some day).

from gmqcc.

Closing this as it isn't really a requirement.

from gmqcc.