From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18037 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 15:21:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18025 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 15:21:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 15:21:39 -0000 Received: from cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (vpn50-9.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.9]) by executor.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787E1ABAF8 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:21:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: (from aph@localhost) by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id h04FLmD21871; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:21:48 GMT From: Andrew Haley MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15894.64524.464371.216489@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 15:24:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword In-Reply-To: <87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg> References: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> <87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 Momchil Velikov writes: > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar writes: > > Robert> If you think "with" is valuable, then the task is to > Robert> convince the guardians of the C++ standard of this. If > Robert> you can't convince the > > Not related to this particular "with" discussion, but I couldn't > disagree more. A standards body should not invent language > "features", but rather codify existing (proven) extensions. I totally agree. A standards should not invent language features, or -- heaven forbid -- programming languages. The reason for this is pretty obvious, in that once a feature is standardized it's too late to remove it if it has some fatal flaw. See Algol 68 for what happens if you do it the other way... Andrew.