From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8529 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2009 14:48:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 8517 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2009 14:48:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,BOTNET,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (HELO vms173003pub.verizon.net) (206.46.173.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:47:54 +0000 Received: from MacOSX.home ([96.244.82.83]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KNH00L0UYF8GDD3@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:47:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-id: <4A6F0F84.8060504@verizon.net> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:48:00 -0000 From: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-version: 1.0 To: James Dennett Cc: Piotr Wyderski , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: The future of concepts References: <9f8a01cd0907280301i2688abefh3874945bf3c180ac@mail.gmail.com> <18738acb0907280305n7ff7fc19x6f3867a87ff5bf86@mail.gmail.com> In-reply-to: <18738acb0907280305n7ff7fc19x6f3867a87ff5bf86@mail.gmail.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 James Dennett wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Piotr Wyderski wrote: > >> Concepts have recently been removed from the C++0x Standard Draft. >> Will the concepts branch be discontinued? >> > > I hope not. Concepts will be "finished" and re-added to C++, and it > would be immensely helpful in that effort if there were a version of > g++ with stronger Concepts support than ConceptGCC had. > > -- James > > We need a gcc branch for concepts. One of the major complaints on concepts and one of the major contributors to its being dropped is that there is no implementation experience. There was no implementation of sufficient quality and availability to give compiler developers confidence and point to wrinkles in the definition and users time to learn and play. It will take a good couple of years to get one working. That leaves open the question of whether the ConceptGCC branch is the one. I just don't know. Maybe someone should start over. I think aim for simplicity. That was another issue I think: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2906.pdf (Stroustrup) Ed