From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12852 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2011 17:21:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 12844 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2011 17:21:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:21:03 +0000 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so3469355gyh.20 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 09:21:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.114.42 with SMTP id jd10mr6216779obb.42.1320600062471; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 09:21:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.34.234 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:21:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EB6B15C.2050507@hesbynett.no> References: <1866885687.5566189.1320435351746.JavaMail.root@vznit170072> <4EB57271.6060309@verizon.net> <4EB58EBC.50201@hesbynett.no> <4EB6A1B5.5080101@hesbynett.no> <4EB6B15C.2050507@hesbynett.no> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [C++11] Reclaiming fixed-point suffixes for user-defined literals. From: Jonathan Wakely To: David Brown Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On 6 November 2011 16:10, David Brown wrote: > Perhaps I have been getting too worked up about small things here, and > missing out on the major points, such as the efforts made to keep things > consistent through the use of header files. =A0I still find it odd that > features are added in different ways in each language, then headers are u= sed > to nullify the differences - but I thank you for your explanation of /why/ > there are these differences. The main reason is that the committees are composed of different people. People get involved with standardisation efforts for the language(s) they care about, and doing extra work to maintain compatibility with a language you don't care about is hard to find motivation for. > I make the assumption that if a feature is in the C front end and not the > C++ front end, then there is a reason for that - though the reason may be= as > simple as "no one has asked for this feature, so no one has made it". Exactly.