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: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

So, with that amendment, i.e., with the addition of:

(d) predefine a macro (or macros) that indicates that we're in C++0x mode

are there objections to the policy set out above? Point (d) doesn't mean that we can't predefine many macros (for various features) or that we have to use any particular value; it's just saying that we'll give users some way of figuring out what dialect of C++ they're using.

Looks good to me.

I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates, remains unresolved: the library and GCC as a whole has a lot to gain from the availability of such feature (see the "competitive advantage" point often raised). But I understand the general policy to which we are converging, I cannot disagree.

I was thinking that maybe we can be optimistic: even if variadic templates will not appear any time soon in a released GCC, the availability of a complete implementation + testcases + re-implementation of TR1 facilities should be fine to reassure the C++ Committee that the feature is implementable and works well in practice! If that is the case, we can hope that the standardization process will be fast and also hope that in the window of time when the feature will be in draft, received favorably by the committee, but still subject to minor changes it will be allowed to go in GCC rather soon, maybe a bit sooner than per the general rules...


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