From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joern Rennecke To: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Cc: gavin@cygnus.com, phdm@macqel.be, gcc2@cygnus.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: #elsif Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 17:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <199804091749.SAA03727@phal.cygnus.co.uk> References: <199804082200.PAA28005@shade.twinsun.com> X-SW-Source: 1998-04/msg00397.html > I assume that you do not want to make a special case for `elsif' only. > (That would be odd; it wouldn't catch other misspellings like `elseif'.) Yes, if we warn for elsif, we should have a like warning for elseif. Both are misspellings of elif that mirror a programming language and might thus be mistaken for the real thing. They are special because they are supposedly meant to end the commenting out. If there were likely misspellings of #endif that could be mistaken for the real thing doe to the similarity with another language (hmmm... maybe #fi would qualify?), that these should also be warned about. The warning for such a specific test should not just be something vanilla like unrecognized #-directive, since that could make people think we warned about all unrecognized directives. It should somehow point out the assumed error.