Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

[libstdc++@ added]


On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:23:37PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I am interested in which is the current policy with respect to implementing
> the C++ defect reports. I noticed that some defects are implemented in the
> code. Others are implemented but "commented away" because they could
> break/modify the semantic of existing code (e.g. DR295). Is there an
> official policy?

(BTW, are you sure you mean 295?  I can't find such commented code.)

See docs/html/ext/howto.html#5 for more.

The existing practice is to only implement changes with DR or TC status,
as we find them and have time, and to mark the change as noted in that howto.

We used to mark the change via #ifdef, but once we moved to the point where
the library would not build without that symbol, we started just using it
in a comment.  (Grep for examples.)  Either way is fine now.


> If not, I suggest we implement all the defect reports with TC1 status

Sounds great, go for it.

> into -stdc=c++98 and gnu98, and that we implement all the defect reports
> with WP status into a new dialect, -stdc=c++0x.

Library code can't detect command line arguments.  We (well, cpplib)
would have to automatically define preprocessor symbols.  Also, some
changes would have to be reverted, to implement the "pure" c++98 code.

I don't necessarily have a problem with all that; just letting you know
what would have to happen before you/we could start.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams