Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

> I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates, 
> remains unresolved: the library and GCC as a whole has a lot to gain 
> from the availability of such feature (see the "competitive advantage" 
> point often raised). But I understand the general policy to which we are 
> converging, I cannot disagree.

I think the battle lines are pretty clearly drawn here: the library
people want this, the front end people are much more hesitant.
Traditionally, Jason has been the ally of extensions such as these: his
continued silence puzzles me.

It's pretty clear that you, me, Doug, and others are all for this. The
practicality is quite apparent.

> I was thinking that maybe we can be optimistic: even if variadic 
> templates will not appear any time soon in a released GCC, the 
> availability of a complete implementation + testcases + 
> re-implementation of TR1 facilities should be fine to reassure the C++ 
> Committee that the feature is implementable and works well in practice! 

You would certainly think this would be enough. I think Doug's gone
beyond the call of duty on this. 

Certainly, I long for the day when every other C++0x proposal was so
diligently worked over....

> If that is the case, we can hope that the standardization process will 
> be fast and also hope that in the window of time when the feature will 
> be in draft, received favorably by the committee, but still subject to 
> minor changes it will be allowed to go in GCC rather soon, maybe a bit 
> sooner than  per the general rules...

I would hope that by the time core decides to work on fine tuning it,
an implementation would be allowed in g++. I consider draft language in
core to be "in the WP."

Quite honestly, I believe actual implementations in wide use will
improve the quality of the final spec.

-benjamin