C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
Tue Sep 19 09:29:00 GMT 2006
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:27:09 -0400, "Doug Gregor"
>I understand. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. The C++ committee does
>not want to standardize anything that isn't "existing practice," but
>compiler vendors (understandably!) only want to implement features
>that look relatively final, because they don't want to be left
>supporting features that didn't make it. Everything makes sense, and
>nobody is at fault, but this stale-mate makes it very hard to move
>C++, as a language, forward. It also makes it hard to be sure that
>what we come up with in "200x" is a coherent language.
>GCC could break this stale-mate by including experimental
>implementations of these features. Then, the community at large can
>experiment and better understand these features, finding (and fixing!)
>problems before the ink dries on C++0x.
I mostly agree without your analysis. But I think it also matters
having a relatively long period of experimentation. This time it seems
to me that there's too much time pressure, both for the committee and
for vendors (speaking about the former I'm seriously worried for the
thread specification, for instance). Don't you think so?
More information about the Libstdc++