Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-08 09:23:36
on Mon Nov 05 2012, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
>> If gnu++11 is used, the goal of the authors isn't portable code, is it?
>> Basically you'd like to 'force' them to use c++11 by taking away the extensions?
> For any extension that is just syntactic sugar or not desperately
> required (as hardware vectorization may be), yes. Their existence is
> damaging in the long term.
Wow, that doesn't sound good to me. We already have trouble
establishing "existing practice" for new features. What you're
suggesting would be a serious problem for the process, unless you only
want to see major changes to the standard, and no new
not-desperately-required-but-nice-to-have "cleanups" or "syntactic
sugar." IMO those incremental improvements might be just as important
as the big things.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk