Is include/c_compatibility still useful?!?

[Paolo Carlini]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>I think they were made in various attempts to implement the standard
>library requirements on <cxxx> headers, based the paper by Nathan.  I
>believe most (all?) of them have failed so far.
>
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification.

>  I would say, it won't
>break don't fix it.  In order words, just leave c_shadow and
>c_compatinbility there if they don't break builds.  
>  
>
Agreed, but notice that c_shadow is gone...

Paolo.