This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Douglas Gregor <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, jason at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:01:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- References: <450A658C.email@example.com> <450F024C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060919173834.GR31210@synopsys.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4511B690.email@example.com> <4516CCFB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <0535BDD0-FEEB-4C4D-823D-2EC7FC9BC2B6@osl.iu.edu> <email@example.com> <45202D43.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4520EBB0.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates,
> remains unresolved: the library and GCC as a whole has a lot to gain
> from the availability of such feature (see the "competitive advantage"
> point often raised). But I understand the general policy to which we are
> converging, I cannot disagree.
I think the battle lines are pretty clearly drawn here: the library
people want this, the front end people are much more hesitant.
Traditionally, Jason has been the ally of extensions such as these: his
continued silence puzzles me.
It's pretty clear that you, me, Doug, and others are all for this. The
practicality is quite apparent.
> I was thinking that maybe we can be optimistic: even if variadic
> templates will not appear any time soon in a released GCC, the
> availability of a complete implementation + testcases +
> re-implementation of TR1 facilities should be fine to reassure the C++
> Committee that the feature is implementable and works well in practice!
You would certainly think this would be enough. I think Doug's gone
beyond the call of duty on this.
Certainly, I long for the day when every other C++0x proposal was so
diligently worked over....
> If that is the case, we can hope that the standardization process will
> be fast and also hope that in the window of time when the feature will
> be in draft, received favorably by the committee, but still subject to
> minor changes it will be allowed to go in GCC rather soon, maybe a bit
> sooner than per the general rules...
I would hope that by the time core decides to work on fine tuning it,
an implementation would be allowed in g++. I consider draft language in
core to be "in the WP."
Quite honestly, I believe actual implementations in wide use will
improve the quality of the final spec.