This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable (union members and ctors)
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- To: Ross Ridge <rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:07:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable (union members and ctors)
- References: <20070617143345.3383D73F96@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Ross Ridge wrote:
t formal definition.
Most of GCC's long list of extensions to C are also implemented as
extensions to C++, so you've already lost this battle in GNU C++.
And many of them are ill-defined (and some would agree ill-considered).
Mistakes in the past are not a good reason for mistakes in the future.
Trying to add new a new feature without an existing implementation only
makes it harder to get both a correct formal definition and something
that people will actually want to use.
I think the best procedure is to discuss new features from a language
design point of view, and the committee is the best forum for that,
then implement them as *part* of the (typically fairly drawn out)
process of adding a new feature.