From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18153 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 02:46:34 -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 18146 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 02:46:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 02:46:33 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6V2kDSu026319; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:46:13 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6V2kCNv026318; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:46:12 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <20030730134614.2C021F2DFE@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02277.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva writes: [...] | because it goes against your theory, why should I expect you to be | reasonable when tagging functions as inline? Because it is not you who write my programs. | If you won't listen to me, why should I listen to you? Obviously, if you could you have already. | Why do you insist on making claims | that `old is good' while all the evidence we have is that, when using I'm not claiming "old is good" against all the evidence. I'm claiming the "new" is not mature enough to replace the "old". That is not speculation. Obviously, if the new were mature enough to replace the "old", we would not have been having all this discussion. -- Gaby