Nested Functions in C++

[Andrew Haley]

Steven Bosscher writes:
 > On Saturday 23 October 2004 13:11, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > So, if we don't implement proposed language extensions people who want
 > > to experiment will probably be forced to use proprietary compilers.
 > 
 > People can still experiment with extensions in private
 > trees.

Yes, but I don't think experimental features should be standardized
without some pretty serious application experience -- and serious
applications tend to be built with real compilers.

 > > And no, this isn't a call for a free-for-all.  But some extensions are
 > > so useful that we should seriously consider them before the TC has
 > > decided to standardize them.
 > 
 > And what if the TC decides to standardize something similar
 > but not the same?  That means you either accept that your
 > compiler will not be backward compatible, or you have to
 > maintain your own non-standard extensions alongside the new,
 > standardizes language feature.

Indeed.  These are serious risks, and must be carefully weighed when
considering language extensions.  But you have to balance risks, and I
believe that the risk of the ISO standardizing a bad language feature
is far greater if that feature has not been much used.

Andrew.