Re: generalized lvalues

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Nov 17, 2004, at 8:01 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2004, at 10:50 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2004, at 10:47 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
> >
> > >  1. It broke valid C++ programs.  If we overload a function on 
> > > constness, like foo(int&) and foo(const int&), then invoking it as 
> > > foo((int) x) is required to call the const version.  Generalized 
> > > lvalues made us choose the latter.
> >
> > If it broke it please file a bug and don't complain that we broke it.
>
> Woops I read it wrong but note the C++ front-end removed this extension
> in 3.4.0 and not just for 4.0.0.
>
> Also removing deprecated stuff after a year is more enough time for
> people to change their code.
>
>
> Also the proposal to deprecate this in C++ was back in May of 2003
> which is more than enough time to object to the original proposal.
>
> In fact you commented on the original proposal:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-05/msg00933.html
> And you concluded the same thing to remove it:

Yep, and I'm still not arguing against removing it.  I'm just asking 
for help in collecting a list of the reasons why we chose to get rid of 
it.  I don't think this discussion will go away, and having that list 
will be helpful.  I think a number of us will be asked: (a) why did 
this extension disappear; and (b) how should I change my code to cope 
with the disappearance.  I'd like to be prepared with answers to those 
questions.

			--Matt