This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 12:40 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis 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'.
> 
> Do you know of any of those compilers with user base we can talk to?

In approximation of the feature, yes: gcc! It has quite a number
of switches for controlling pedantry, standards conformance,
mapping errors to warnings etc.

> [...]
> 
> | Note I'm entirely agreeing with your the first line I quote
> | from you above, but questioning lack of sympathy with proposals
> | to deprecate features considered undesirable.
> 
> I'm just being realistic.  Code base don't just vanish overnight
> because the ISO committee voted to deprecate things.  I realize the
> situation might be different in a totally different, imaginary,
> perfect world.

I agree, I wasn't suggesting removing support for deprecated
features overnight: rather than you don't view deprecation
unfavourably, precisely because it *doesn't* imply 
uncontrolled feature removal. Contrarily my point is that
they can be enabled or disabled with a small number
of comprehensible switches.

gcc already does this kind of thing and it is good,
although the exact features sets controlled by switch
combinations are sometimes a bit hard to understand.



-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net


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