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: [4.1] UCNs in identifiers

On Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 09:59 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
You may not commit this patch, or any other patch along the same
lines.  This feature MUST NOT be implemented until the associated bugs
in the C and C++ standards are fixed.

I find this position somewhat drastic. Our history is littered with bad language specs, incomplete language specs, contradictory language specs, missing language specs and beyond. I don't find it at all bad to implement the middle core that is obvious, agreed upon and implied if not stated by the standard; failing that, what users want.

I don't find it a crime to change an ABI for a new feature that no one uses, and no one in their right might could portably use.

I guess I am just more pragmatic. The compiler isn't an exercise in academic purity, nor necessarily the reflection of some perfection of a language spec, but rather, what a user wants. Either, they tell us what they want, or we decide what they want.

I appreciate that you may not want to do the deciding, what's your right, but, also, I don't see that progress should be blocked, just because some silly language spec. Rewrite the language specs if you want, and submit that to the committee if you want.

We can do up a proposed solution that resolves all the known issues, deliver that to users, get feedback on it, propose it as the standard. I'd rather the standard be based upon something that someone has thought through, implemented, resolved all the issues that users bring up and that users use...

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