This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Removal of pre-ISO C++ items from include/backwards

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> skaller wrote:
> > I think this is the wrong idea. Deprecated does carry a lot
> > of weight. It allows a new compiler without a legacy
> > to elide the feature and specify it is ISO compliant
> > 'minus' the deprecated features, which is quite different
> > from 'non-compliant'.
> are you sure? I thought conformance required deprecated features
> to be allowed

yes, it does, but the point is, you can say 'conforms
except deprecated features are removed' in one line.

A standard is a very long winded document with a single
practical purpose -- the ability to say "ISO C++" in two 
words and mean 1000 pages by it. It has no other semantic
function than saving paper :)

This makes it very easy for people to make purchasing
or usage choices (instead of having to read 1000 pages
of specifications for every product).

So a list of deprecated features has the purpose of
allowing one to say "ISO C++ minus deprecations"
and expect the resulting compiler is still a good one
to use, particularly if you can convert your compiler
from "ISO C++" to "ISO C++--" with a single switch.
You can view this as a parametrized version is C++,
and so the compiler still judged conformant to a 
closely related standard.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]