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

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Mon Sep 25 02:39:00 GMT 2006

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:


| * Therefore, building on the suggestions in this thread, my suggestion
| is that we:
| (a) add C++0x features only with a command-line option (off by
| default, for now) so that users have to explicitly request the
| features,
| (b) document that option in the manual as enabling experimental
| features and warning people that C++0x is subject to change, and that
| the GCC Gimplementation will track the actual standard, without regard
| for backwards compatibility with previous GCC releases,
| (c) refrain from adding a feature until it is actually part of the WP,
| so that "feature oscillation" is minimized.
| What do people think of that suggestion?

That looks reasonable to me.

Let me emphasize different points that was made int this discussion.

* distinguish "C++0x" (what is voted into the WP), from would-be-C++0x
 (proposals on EWG table not voted yet into WP)

* encourage experimental development on branches.

* make sure that GCC implementation does not conflict with "C++0x".

-- Gaby

More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list