Markus Elfring

Thanks for [your renaming of affected identifiers](https://github.com/arithy/packcc/commit/e78c157ec230bdd63c50bcd3d845e3c54f096c20#diff-263210d6acbeb3578e53a8ca8d003273L244 "Fix a part of identifiers not to violate the C++ standard"). :crystal_ball: Can [a name selection](https://github.com/arithy/packcc/blob/e78c157ec230bdd63c50bcd3d845e3c54f096c20/src/packcc.c#L784 "create_context()") trigger any corresponding software development concerns?

How do you [think about](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/228783/what-are-the-rules-about-using-an-underscore-in-a-c-identifier#answer-228797 "What are the rules about using an underscore in a C++ identifier?") to [rename also functions](https://github.com/arithy/packcc/blob/e78c157ec230bdd63c50bcd3d845e3c54f096c20/src/packcc.c#L711 "Update candidate")?

>I don't want to rename them anymore. This implementation detail can be fine according to the naming convention for the programming language “C”. Can anybody get concerned about remaining risks...

:thought_balloon: I became curious if interests could grow further for involved standard compliance aspects.

Some development concerns can be tackled together for the programming languages “C” and “C++”, can't they?

:crystal_ball: I am curious how such an issue will evolve further.

- Does [a tool like “autoscan”](https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/autoscan-Invocation.html "Using autoscan to create configure.ac") show any software dependencies that you find worth for further considerations? - How do you think about to support...

:thought_balloon: I hope that interests can grow also for applications of build system generators.

>I have no plan to use CMake or Autotools for now because I don't feel their necessity as for PackCC. :crystal_ball: Under which circumstances will software users feel the need...

:thought_balloon: How will the chances evolve to integrate the adjustment of two assignment statements directly?