[v3] annex D 8 and 9 for C++0x

Joe Buck Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM
Fri Oct 26 21:51:00 GMT 2007


On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:57:23PM -0500, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> 
> > | Is it in Annex D in C++0x? If so, then yes. Why would it be treated
> > | differently than anything else?
> > 
> > Because we don't need to follow every of the LWG nonsenses.
> 
> That's pretty subjective. See how simple my criteria is? 

OK, how about this criterion: we might deviate when deviation does
not prevent any standard-conforming program from building correctly,
but that does allow large parts of existing codebases to continue
to work.

> From my perspective, we should be trying to
> actively engage/harmonize ISO C++ w/ the rest of the world. The first
> part of that is the implementations of new ideas, especially ones
> that have been vetted. As a group, some of us have decided to try and
> implement items that are voted into the C++ draft. If you don't like my
> implementation, tell me why. I'm flexible, and want feedback: the more
> specific you are, the better. 

By all means, implement new items in the draft.

But I am worried that you are being much too aggressive about deprecation.
550 broken Debian packages is not a good sign.  Have you checked with your
colleagues about just how big a job you're handing them, getting Fedora or
RHEL6 to work with 4.3?



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list