C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)

[Paolo Carlini]

Doug Gregor wrote:
> On 9/15/06, Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> wrote:
>> At the same time, I (still) believe we badly need a global strategy for
>> the C++0x features, for those features adding keywords,
>> incompatibilities, and all the others: as noticed by Richard G in
>> private conversation, probably the transition could be managed similarly
>> to that to C99, only I'm not sure about the current time frame, when
>> only a draft of C++0x exists
> One way to approach it is to say that -std=c++0x is an evolving thing,
> containing experimental features that may not be available in future
> versions of GCC. Then when we figure out what 'x' is (probably '9';
> Bjarne says we can't use hexadecimal), we add -std=c++09 with the
> features that actually made it in.
Absolutely. Actually yesterday in conversation with Richard G he made 
the very same point (i.e., 0x vs 09). Seems a very nice way to manage 
the transition...
>> and, I would say, many of the most anticipated features are not there 
>> yet.
> True :(
>
> Granted, there's a bit of low-hanging fruit we could pick, just to get
> the gears turning. static_assert comes to mind...
That would be great.
>> What about adding something
>> about that process in the wiki section about gcc4.3 (by the way, I
>> noticed that variadic templates are already there, good)??
> I'm all for it.
Another idea, which may turn out be useful at some point, is that of 
adding a new warning to the C++03 compiler for keywords which are 
"reserved" for C++0x: it would help users prepare their projects for the 
new standard. Would be something similar in spirit to -Wc++-compat, 
added by Gaby time ago.

Paolo.