From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3942 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 02:55:22 -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 3935 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 02:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 02:55:21 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id EF97BF2D52; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:55:09 -0500 (EST) To: dewar@gnat.com, gmariani@chaincast.com Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030105025509.EF97BF2D52@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 03:16:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 > You talk about binary compatability. I'm more concerned about source > compatability however there are issues with binary compatability as well > - in the case, use of enums or typedefs in a class may cause binary > issues. Think a little harder, they are there. No, I am talking *entirely* about source compatibility, obviously you can't expect binaries to be compatible if you go changing the members in a struct (think of space required for example). You apparently have misread everything I said > I've given examples. They still stand. No, you have not given any realistic example of the library situation which worries you so much.