From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-66375-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21987 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2003 00:33:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21980 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2003 00:33:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2003 00:33:48 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id A9AC1F2CB2; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:33:47 -0500 (EST)
To: dewar@gnat.com, fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Subject: Re: Re: c++ "with" keyword
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, normanjonas@arcor.de
Message-Id: <20030118003347.A9AC1F2CB2@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:53:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00856.txt.bz2

> My viewpoint is slightly different: GCC *should* be used as an arena for
> implementing random language extensions, but in general those extensions
> should not be merged into the main CVS branch.  (They would only be merged
> on the main branch if there is a *very* convincing case made for them.)

Yes, of course it is fine to use GCC as an arena for playing with language
extensions. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I was talking about the
official release.