This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] Update coding conventions for C++
- From: Lawrence Crowl <crowl at google dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Chiheng Xu <chiheng dot xu at gmail dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>, Miles Bader <miles at gnu dot org>, Magnus Fromreide <magfr at lysator dot liu dot se>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:32:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Update coding conventions for C++
- References: <CAGqM8fZqRJ-bFQAiMWBP==99ae=ePKUcEwCvQyotuw4Sh=SKDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGqM8fbU2d7v_aG--LqGhmzi1dOGcHq030BdaSndR6yvT4Ud3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_=9DQ5+ie-P0yr8XJBb0EFQmqB7k5XLCh6LtqMn1wX8n6Q4g@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206251857380.17603@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAGqM8fa=GmKqpPSo-z_m4KcQ2KOTzP3QVLPwzyi_NzdNeMbEAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGqM8fa2pUWeJm-1rwMLntMc9EAGAp57ys0KEcCcWQP2856rhA@mail.gmail.com> <20120626124513.GB1641@virgil.arch.suse.de> <CAGqM8fYBVqrz-tC_t6r8vO8vN=PCdDaDcCQH_VgLHFScg+9vdg@mail.gmail.com> <20120627132149.GA9901@virgil.arch.suse.de> <CAGqM8fb518gQ69iFSpjOae+UVAxs8xxy8_QDsxvNipdOcHwefw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGqM8fYrwc_1Ldy9+8EPgq1q1ufSSQbSvj7B4JDnUK0KE2-1tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGqM8fYvdvft3Ecm3Gw-+xZtGLXVmKauPuvDJdSRS0b+prsgBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiZkiDNsF4uUiZyXHUgnZViSqhjXSApR3q4k6sq_0BZcYk2Ug@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/1/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote:
>> Resend, as I replied to a message that didn't have the usual suspects
>> on the cc line.
>>
>> On 6/27/12, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote:
>>> ..., does anyone object to removing the permission to use C++
>>> streams?
>>
>> Having heard no objection, I removed the permission.
>
> This is an area where I think we should not be too prescriptive.
> Clearly, the diagnostics machinery will be used for anything
> diagnostics -- so whether IOStreams are allowed or not would
> not change that. On the other hand, I feel we should defer to
> maintainers' discretion in specific areas whether people are
> implementing dumping or other I/O facilities not related to
> diagnostics, since as I you correctly pointed out, there is an
> added value of flexibility and expressivity.
>
> In summary: Instead of blanket ban, I would suggest that uses for
> C++ I/O streams be reserved for non-diagnostics purposes and left
> at the discretion of maintainers.
Given that maintainers have discretion to grant exceptions
anyway, would you be willing to let the wording stand without
that permission?
I'd like to get the document committed in some form so that we can
make progress on the dependent activities. At present, none of
those activities depend on this issue.
--
Lawrence Crowl