Heads-up: volatile and C++

[Mike Stump]

On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 03:19  PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>> You can read it as, it was and will always be, just a bad idea.
>
> When will be a full and standard conforming template implementation in 
> GCC finished then?

?

Seriously, what does that have to do with anything?

I know, let's not recommend C for device driver programming, because 
there doesn't exist a C compiler that doesn't have a bug in the world.

My claim would be, there is a reasonable portable subset of C, or C++ 
that one can use in their endeavors.  Further, while in 1992, this 
subset maybe didn't reasonably include templates, that in 2005, it does.

If for you, it doesn't, well, ok, fine.

Go research why that thing that I refuse to even name, doesn't include 
templates, report back here, when you have the answer.  Don't accept 
the marketing explanation either.  I can then check, and see if your 
answer matches mine.  We can then discuss if, at the time, it made for 
a good decision for the so named subset, it did not.