From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7834 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 15:00:16 -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 7780 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 15:00:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.maxx.bg) (217.9.232.133) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 15:00:14 -0000 Received: by merlin.maxx.bg (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D5DDF2C86FD; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:59:58 +0200 (EET) To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, normanjonas@arcor.de Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword References: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> From: Momchil Velikov Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 15:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> Message-ID: <87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar writes: Robert> If you think "with" is valuable, then the task is to convince the Robert> guardians of the C++ standard of this. If you can't convince the Not related to this particular "with" discussion, but I couldn't disagree more. A standards body should not invent language "features", but rather codify existing (proven) extensions. Robert> C++ community to add the feature, then I think it is a mistake Robert> for gcc to second guess. What community ? Compiler developers add features. ~velco