C++ defect reports: how to behave

[Giovanni Bajo]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:

> It's not clear whether that's quite right.  Clearly if an issue with WP
> status conflicts with current use, it can't be enabled by default.

Yes, I guess this is why, for instance, the implementation of DR295 is
disabled.

> It might be worth opening up a new dialect as you suggest and growing it
> as the committee adds any extensions.  But I'm not sure that the "WP"
> designator and -std=c++0x should be the same.

I was thinking also of a new kind of warning, like "warn if your code will
change semantic under c++0x". This might be useful to help people in the
transition from c++98 to c++0x. I also agree that we should keep c++98 (or
gnu98) as default for now.

Giovanni Bajo