[C++ Patch] PR 32614
Mon Oct 17 11:31:00 GMT 2011
On 10/17/2011 01:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>> Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
>>> Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added.
>>> I don't remember adding that line to change the default.
>> Indeed, as far as I can see, you added that line while *preserving* the
>> existing behavior and preparing the C++ variant of the pretty_print
>> machinery. Thus, AFAICS, 72 never existed anywhere and, strictly speaking,
>> there is nothing to *restore*.
> I do not know what you mean by "there is nothing to restore".
> Look at the other mail by Richard. The C pretty-printer *post*-dated
> the C++ pretty printer.
Hey, I don't own viewcvs, of svn, for that matter, you could also dare
to help a bit with this crazy archeological task, can't you?!? I looked
back only untile 70777, and that point and a bit earlier there where
already no 72s around, thus, right *nothing to restore*. Now we are
learning that *even earlier* we had a 72. Fine. Now, after so many
years, are we ****really**** sure that our users would consider an
*improvement* a 72? I'm honestly not sure at all. Again, what the best
C++ front-ends around do, by default? I'm sincerely curious.
More information about the Gcc-patches