What purpose does __NO_ISOCEXT serve?

IMO, it is an aberration.  AFAICT, it is another mechanism, in addition
to __STRICT_ANSI__, for suppressing declarations which are not expected
to be specified in the ISO-C namespace.  In the mingwrt headers, I see
several instances where non-ISO-C declarations are conditionalized on
!__NO_ISOCEXT, but many more where !__STRICT_ANSI__ is used (abused?)
for the same purpose; there seems to be no rational explanation for the
particular choice made, in each instance.

I'd like to get rid of this aberration.  Unfortunately, there seems to
be an abundance of anecdotal evidence, on the internet, for it having
leaked into user space, (in spite of the double underscore prefix, which
*should* mark it as reserved for internal use by the runtime
implementation).  Thus, I propose folding it into a _mingw.h feature
test initialization, (_POSIX_C_SOURCE perhaps?), and replacing its use
elsewhere, with the appropriate *enabling* feature test.

Thoughts?  Objections?

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk