C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)

[Paolo Carlini]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

>>So, with that amendment, i.e., with the addition of:
>>
>>(d) predefine a macro (or macros) that indicates that we're in C++0x mode
>>
>>are there objections to the policy set out above?  Point (d) doesn't 
>>mean that we can't predefine many macros (for various features) or that 
>>we have to use any particular value; it's just saying that we'll give 
>>users some way of figuring out what dialect of C++ they're using.
>>    
>>
>Looks good to me.
>
I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates, 
remains unresolved: the library and GCC as a whole has a lot to gain 
from the availability of such feature (see the "competitive advantage" 
point often raised). But I understand the general policy to which we are 
converging, I cannot disagree.

I was thinking that maybe we can be optimistic: even if variadic 
templates will not appear any time soon in a released GCC, the 
availability of a complete implementation + testcases + 
re-implementation of TR1 facilities should be fine to reassure the C++ 
Committee that the feature is implementable and works well in practice! 
If that is the case, we can hope that the standardization process will 
be fast and also hope that in the window of time when the feature will 
be in draft, received favorably by the committee, but still subject to 
minor changes it will be allowed to go in GCC rather soon, maybe a bit 
sooner than  per the general rules...

Paolo.