This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:43:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?
References: <20020524160946.A25546@disaster.basement.lan> <m3ptzl5inp.fsf@merlin.nerim.net> <20020524212731.A27183@disaster.basement.lan>

Phil Edwards wrote:

>Not strong ones.  Just weaker ones (simplification, removal of unneeded code,
>etc).  I'm happy to see them searched by default, but happier to see them
>only present when the user explicitly requests pre-Standard stuff.
>
Personally, I'm tempted to be with Phil, but weeks ago, when some 
backwards bits (backward/hash_map, I believe) turned out to be broken 
due to the ext/ work, *two* people (Jakub Jelinek and Philipp Thomas) 
noticed it at the same time! Therefore, I'm afraid a few widespread 
packages still use them heavily :-(

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?
  - From: Phil Edwards
- Re: Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Should 3.2 still search backward/ headers by default?
  - From: Phil Edwards

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]