Markus Elfring

>It seems that your experiment … have broken the build. This software build alternative is just evolving as usual. I find [that the make script](https://github.com/ocaml/ocamlbuild/blob/7115a9441ed11a736834305ea17a42ab1f251a4d/Makefile#L14 "Update candidate") which is used...

The file “ocamlbuild.ml” is using [the specification “Ocamlbuild_pack.Main”](https://github.com/ocaml/ocamlbuild/blob/6a7311b74a639f77868f8c2d25d74c46763bee24/src/ocamlbuild.ml#L17 "Calling the main function"). Do you get any further ideas why this reference is not resolved so far by the generated compilation...

Can any progress be achieved for the following information? ``` elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau/OCamlbuild> rm -f man/options_man.byte && LANG=C OCAMLRUNPARAM=b make man/ocamlbuild.options.1 … ocamlc.opt -I 'o/bin/' -o 'man/options_man.byte' 'o/bin/ocamlbuild_pack.cmo' '/home/elfring/Projekte/OCaml/OCamlbuild/lokal/man/options_man.ml' man/options_man.byte > man/ocamlbuild.options.1...

- Thanks for [your small source code improvement](https://github.com/ctxis/RDP-Replay/commit/5136de06062bbd08e843bd787d74def6b45996a0). - How do you think about to update also the bundled software?

[Include guard macros](http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.2.1.html) are also [identifiers](http://www.coding-guidelines.com/cbook/sent792.pdf). How do you think about [other interpretations for their relevance in standard compliance](https://github.com/seL4/seL4/issues/2)? Would you like to reuse a name pattern that [I suggested...

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I have got a different opinion. I would prefer to reduce the probability for name clashes even more.

No. - These bug reports can be closed after the affected identifiers will be improved. Would you like to add the project name to [your include guards](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard#Difficulties) as a prefix...

Do you [care for standard-compliance](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23696115/is-pragma-once-part-of-the-c11-standard#answer-23699893)?

:thought_balloon: Would you like to take [the C++ guideline “R.11: Avoid calling new and delete explicitly”](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#r11-avoid-calling-new-and-delete-explicitly "Recommendations around allocation and deallocation") better into account?

By the way: :thought_balloon: [The management of parent-child relationships needs further development attention](https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/objecttrees.html "Object Trees & Ownership in Qt") (as usual).