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: backwards headers vs. C++0x


Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 19:23 +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Sorry Doug, at the cost of appearing dumb, otherwise I never get a 
>> chance to understand this issue, where is iostream.h mentioned in the 
>> standard?
> 
> *Smacks forehead*. The only cost here was making *me* look dumb :) I had
> convinced myself that iostream.h et. al. were part of Appendix D. They
> aren't. Burn 'em!

It's likely (well, near certain) that I've missed earlier parts of this
discussion, but I'd like to understand the cost of keeping the backward/
directory around?  There's a total of 2530 lines of code there,
including comments.  Most of the headers contain using directives, but
not much else.

If it's not hard to keep these headers, why not do it?  We know that
there are a lot of users that have large codebases and are resistant to
changing them.  The free software codebases (e.g., KDE) are not
representative of industrial codebases.  If maintaining compatibility
makes it hard to move forward and implement new features, that's a good
argument for removing things -- but just tidiness isn't.

As I say, I've probably missed a discussion in which it's been made
clear that keeping these header files is imposing some substantial cost.
 Just point me at it.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


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