ISO C++ and C99 features

[Martin v. Loewis]

> I think it'll get worse, in that users will ask for more c99
> features to be available in C++. 

I agree that g++ should support C99 features; and I'd expect this to
happen even in "default" mode. By default, g++ accepts "GNU C++", not
"Standard C++", and I think GNU C++ should be a superset of both
ISO C++ 98 and ISO C 99.

Of course, in pedantic mode, we should be exactly that: pedantic. I'm
not sure whether any of the C99 features affect -ansi, i.e. is there
any a program that would mean a different thing under C++98 and
C++98+C99?

> Note the number of bug reports we get about rejecting some C inside
> an extern "C" scope.

Which ones in particular? I always thought that users were really
misunderstanding extern "C", i.e. that it is really C++ inside -
sometimes users think that "class" should not be a keyword inside
extern "C", which I think it should - that has nothing to do with C99.

Just my 0.02EUR,
Martin