This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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++ "with" keyword

From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 12:42:30 +0100
Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword
Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
References: <20030104162506.E11CFF2D4F@nile.gnat.com> <15896.5319.39142.29263@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>

Andrew Haley wrote:

Yes, but it's a lot easier to remove a feature from a compiler than
from a standard.

Hmmm, the Fortran community has the opposite experience: Several Fortran 77 constructs were "obsoleted" in Fortran 95, but every time they get mentioned in committee meetings, the vendor members of the committee exclaim in unisono: "But our compiler will always support <this construct>".

The Bottom Line: Extensions are like Sex; one mistake and you have to support it a life time ...

--
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)

References:
- Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Andrew Haley

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