This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
- From: "Lawrence Crowl" <crowl at google dot com>
- To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches List" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:09:39 -0800
- Subject: Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
- References: <24b520d20802281347y38351b34i8a2cabd61d6c6e26@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360802281352h640ebeb6oe271377f82eb8ccd@mail.gmail.com> <24b520d20802281420k6c570f6n10cc83589dce4ab8@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360802281422t12cc576bwe8ad099244cb357f@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/28/08, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2337.pdf
> >
> > Basically, the use of "auto" as a storage specifier is pretty rare,
> > and conflicts with the new meaning of "auto" in C++0x.
>
> So what if it is rare, it is breaking backwards compatibility even
> more. They should have used a new keyword instead but then again
> they know best, at least we hope they do.
Adding a new keyword would in all probability have introduced a
greater incompatibility than changing the meaning of auto because
programmers weren't using that word. I did a code search for auto,
and found 2/3 of all uses to be in compiler conformance tests.
--
Lawrence Crowl