Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

[Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:

> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
> > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
> > user community before we do that.  Of all the extensions we've had, this
> > one really hasn't been that problematic.
> 
> I would prefer them to stay. My reasons:
> 
> 1) std::min() and std::max() are not exact replacements. For instance, you
> cannot do std::min(3, 4.0f) because the arguments are of different type.
> Also, you cannot use reference to non-const types as arguments. The min/max
> exensions do not suffer from these problems (I consider the former very
> problematic, and the latter just annoying).

I was about to reply making the same point about template argument
deduction.


Whether or not the extensions get deprecated, shouldn't the docs for
them at least mention std::min and std::max, rather than only referring
to the infamous, flawed macros?

	* gcc/doc/extend.texi: Mention std::min and std::max in docs for
        min/max operators.

Patch OK for mainline?

jon

-- 
"In theory, practice and theory are the same,
 but in practice they are different."
	- Larry McVoy

Attachment: gcc-doc_minmax.patch
Description: Text document