This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DR handling for C++
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
- To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>,Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: 20 Sep 2004 16:14:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: DR handling for C++
- Organization: Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science
- References: <414F37E0.firstname.lastname@example.org><461F70B0-0B49-11D9-ADB7-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com>
Matt Austern <email@example.com> writes:
| The fact is that the C++ committee uses DRs in several different ways.
| In some cases it's "the standard calls for something that's
| unimplementable or inconsistent, so here's a bug fix", and in other
| cases it's "we think the standard called for something that's not a
| good idea, so here's a better redesign."
| There are some committee issues that ought to be implemented, because
| there are some cases where the standard really is unimplementable,
| vague, meaningless, or contradictory. But at this point there is only
| only official C++ standard, and where that standard is clear and
| consistent our users have a right to expect that we'll follow it.
well, isn't the last sentence in contradiction with the first paragraph? :-)
I believe C++98 + TC1, aka C++03 is a good thresold. Anything
else should fall under -std=c++0x or -std=c++-experimental.