Re: [v3] annex D 8 and 9 for C++0x

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

| 
| > | Is it in Annex D in C++0x? If so, then yes. Why would it be treated
| > | differently than anything else?
| > 
| > Because we don't need to follow every of the LWG nonsenses.
| 
| That's pretty subjective. See how simple my criteria is? 
| 
| Hiding our heads in the sand accomplishes nothing,

Agreed.  But, breaking existing codes for no good reason accomplishes
even less. 

| From my perspective, we should be trying to
| actively engage/harmonize ISO C++ w/ the rest of the world. The first
| part of that is the implementations of new ideas, especially ones
| that have been vetted. As a group, some of us have decided to try and
| implement items that are voted into the C++ draft. If you don't like my
| implementation, tell me why. I'm flexible, and want feedback: the more
| specific you are, the better. 

My suggestion is to leave auto_ptr<> alone.

| If you're just cranky because Sylvio was up late/early, no biggie. You
| have my sympathies. Watch out for the Halloween sugar high!
| 
| ;) 

:-)

-- Gaby