From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16345 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 19:20:50 -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 16338 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.2) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from lincoln.constant.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A6ED80001E; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:07:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: austern@apple.com Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-Id: <20030305132044.4abee16f.bkoz@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 > I think the only really controversial question would be whether to allow > partial specialization of templates. Everything else is a clear yes or a > clear no. Please, let's stay on topic. Tom has requested, and has a valid need for: 1) full C++ class semantics, including construction/destruction 2) exception handling I don't think it's necessary to debate that these requests are reasonable, nor do I think it is necessary to define at this moment what is acceptable use, now or in the future: that's for maintainers in the future to deal with. These kind of limitations are precisely what has put this whole question on the table. -benjamin ps. thanks mark for letting the rest of us know that the SC is contemplating this issue. I propose "oracle@gcc.gnu.org" for the rest of us to ask the SC questions.