This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Douglas Gregor <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:50:18 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- References: <450A658C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <450F024C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20060919173834.GR31210@synopsys.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4511B690.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4516CCFB.email@example.com> <0535BDD0-FEEB-4C4D-823D-2EC7FC9BC2B6@osl.iu.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <45202D43.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4520EBB0.email@example.com>
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates,
So, with that amendment, i.e., with the addition of:Looks good to me.
(d) predefine a macro (or macros) that indicates that we're in C++0x
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.
I agree, and to be 100% clear, I don't mean to preclude debate on that
issue. I think having a policy will be a useful guide, but we can
always decide to make exceptions to it when and as needed.
(650) 331-3385 x713