This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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] |
On 9/15/06, Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> wrote:Absolutely. Actually yesterday in conversation with Richard G he made the very same point (i.e., 0x vs 09). Seems a very nice way to manage the transition...At the same time, I (still) believe we badly need a global strategy for the C++0x features, for those features adding keywords, incompatibilities, and all the others: as noticed by Richard G in private conversation, probably the transition could be managed similarly to that to C99, only I'm not sure about the current time frame, when only a draft of C++0x existsOne way to approach it is to say that -std=c++0x is an evolving thing, containing experimental features that may not be available in future versions of GCC. Then when we figure out what 'x' is (probably '9'; Bjarne says we can't use hexadecimal), we add -std=c++09 with the features that actually made it in.
That would be great.and, I would say, many of the most anticipated features are not there yet.True :(
Granted, there's a bit of low-hanging fruit we could pick, just to get the gears turning. static_assert comes to mind...
Another idea, which may turn out be useful at some point, is that of adding a new warning to the C++03 compiler for keywords which are "reserved" for C++0x: it would help users prepare their projects for the new standard. Would be something similar in spirit to -Wc++-compat, added by Gaby time ago.I'm all for it.What about adding something about that process in the wiki section about gcc4.3 (by the way, I noticed that variadic templates are already there, good)??
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |