This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
On 9/19/06, Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
>In any case, we shouldn't accept any extension that isn't rigorously specified:
>if it isn't in a released standard, it should have a rigorous description
>with the same kind of detail that one finds in an official standard.
As far as I can see, Doug's variadic templates certainly qualify, from
this point of view.
For all the reasons explained again by Doug and Joe, I would like to see
some leeway for that subset of C++0x features which cannot possibly
result in incompatibilities. At the same time, we must help the users
with appropriate warnings, and do more disruptive work only in a new branch.
I agree that we need to have proper warning machinery in place. I
a -Wc++0x-compat warning which would warn about c++0x keywords used in
existing code. And I suggest to either warn about or disable c++0x features if
-std=c++0x is not specified (barring a way to have tr1 use c++0x
features even if not
in c++0x mode).
It would be unfortunate if people cannot start to explore the new