From: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: DR handling for C++
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2C6F521B-0B4D-11D9-ADB7-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <414F4AEC.3080709@codesourcery.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Matt Austern wrote:
>
>> On Sep 20, 2004, at 1:04 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> I've been asked to provide my input on the handling of DRs in the
>>> C++ front end.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't have the messages from the original thread,
>>> so I'm off starting a new thread.
>>>
>>> I certainly agree with Matt and Nathan that there's no point in
>>> supporting C++98 separately from C++03. I also agree that new
>>> features in future revisions of C++ should be supported only under a
>>> flag. I think that fixes for existing features, however, should be
>>> incorporated into the C++03 mode, even if they don't show up in
>>> C++03 itself. (A "defect repot", after all, is supposed to refer to
>>> a bug in the standard.) I think the threshold for incorporating
>>> such fixes should be that the fixes are in WP status, in general,
>>> although I'd consider other fixes if it seems clear that the
>>> commitee is going to accept the change and the change seems
>>> important.
>>
>>
>> I'd be unhappy about taking all "WP" changes unconditionally, either
>> CWG or LWG.
>
> ...
>
>> My concern is that if we implement all issues in "WP" status we'll be
>> back in the bad place we were in the late 90s: tracking an unstable
>> document, and claiming to implement a "standard" that hasn't actually
>> been standardized.
>>
>> There are some committee issues that ought to be implemented, because
>> there are some cases where the standard really is unimplementable,
>> vague, meaningless, or contradictory. But at this point there is
>> only only official C++ standard, and where that standard is clear and
>> consistent our users have a right to expect that we'll follow it.
>
> Aren't we basically in agreement? I think we both agree that we
> needn't bother with C++98 separate from C++03. I said above that new
> features should require a flag, which I think is what you want too.
> If there's a disagreement, it's probably around exactly which
> non-feature modifications we should incorporate by default. (For
> example, should the enum thing you mentioned be incorporated by
> default in our C++03 mode?) I think I'd take those on a case-by-case
> basis, incorporating those that looked like they were really fixing
> silly things in C++03, and deferring those that are not.
We are in agreement, yes. I misread you; I thought you were suggesting
that our default mode should conform to "C++03 + all issues in WP
status", and I was arguing that it should conform to "C++03 + a few
issues in WP that we've selected on a case-by-case basis because we
believe they are clear bug fixes."
> In this particular case, I'd think we should accept it with a warning
> in C++03 mode. (I think the intent of C++03 was to make that case
> invalid, but the standard failed to actually say that. )
In this particular case there is no issue in WP status that changes
what the C++03 standard says. The only fully resolved issue on this
subject is CWG 132, which reaffirms the strict reading of the C++98
standard.
I expect that CWG issue 389 will be voted to WP status at the Redmond
meeting. If that's correct, then in early 2005 we will have a clear
example where the committee will have made one deliberate choice for
C++03 and a different choice for C++0x. That's a good example of a
place where we'll want our compiler's behavior to depend on a flag that
selects which standard we're conforming to.
--Matt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-20 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-20 20:44 Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 20:47 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-09-20 20:55 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-09-20 21:26 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-09-20 21:00 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:04 ` Matt Austern
2004-09-20 21:08 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:36 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 23:42 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-21 8:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-09-21 8:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-09-21 12:39 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-20 20:54 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 21:01 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:07 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 21:14 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:41 ` Matt Austern
2004-09-20 22:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 22:59 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 23:12 ` Matt Austern [this message]
2004-09-20 23:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-10-18 9:19 ` Jason Merrill
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2C6F521B-0B4D-11D9-ADB7-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com \
--to=austern@apple.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).