C++: Naming the standard properly

Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
Mon Feb 21 08:45:00 GMT 2000

Martin --

  Thanks for this patch.  My top-level question is why we should say
either "ANSI" or "ISO".  Many users may not be familiar with either
standards body.

  The real information conveyed by the "ANSI" or "ISO" is that if you
don't compile with -pedantic you might be able to get your code to
compile without this warning/error.  In other words, the point is that
there are GCC extensions that might allow your code.

  I'd prefer we find some way to express that directly, if we really
want to express that at all.  Personally, I don't think that bit of
information is very helpful, especially since I think that you
actually have to say -fpermissive to get by most of these things.

  These days, nice compilers put out hyperlinks in error messages so
that you can click on the error message, get zapped straight to a
description of the problem, including chapter and verse from the
standard, etc.  Or the IDE can show this information automatically.
That's probably the best way to convey information like this, but that
requires that GCC's error messages have a lot more structure than they
do.  We're moving gradually in that direction -- but the last time I
tried this I caught a good deal of flak, so I'm not going to actively
promote this idea at least until after breakfast. :-)

  But, I think your patch is less offensive to the international
community than the current state, and ISO is no more obscure than ANSI
for users in the United States.  So, I see no reason not to install it
-- please go ahead.

Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list