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

[Mats Wichmann]

Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 05:54:46PM +0200, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
>   
>> Calling the extension -std=c++0x is probably a wrong choice as it seems
>> to make some promise... It is better probably to explicitly state the
>> fact that the thing is experimental (whatever are the other measures
>> taken to not over-expose users to the new stuff)...
>>
>> -std=c++-experimental or -std=c++-experimental-0x
>>     
>
> Agreed.
>
>   
>> Another way of giving the code some test is to find a way to enable it
>> only for the purpose of libstdc++.
>>     
>
> I *disagree* with this.  GCC should be available as a testbed for features
> that are being seriously considered for future standards.  If users are
> prevented from using them, then it can't serve that purpose.
>
> If features are needed to write a good standard library, then the same
> features are going to be useful for others to write good code (unless
> the standard library itself gives access to the full power of the
> feature).
Weighing in from a lurker... I agree here also.  There's a growing 
feeling around standards
that an early open source implementation adds huge value to the process 
of approving standards,
as it gives the opportunity to experiment in all sorts of ways and prove 
out the concepts. I
don't know if the C++ standards committee is specifically thinking this 
way - I'm sure
others here do know - but it's a wonderful service we can provide.