incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: Empty member initializers
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:00:32 GMT
Travis Vitek wrote:
>  
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>
>> Travis Vitek wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>> This all gets back to the discussion we were having a few weeks ago
>>> about which compiler features we should expect the compiler 
>>> support for
>>> 4.3.x.
>> I'm adding a Wiki page listing these compiler requirements but I can
>> only think of one or two ATM.  What else should be on this list?
>>
> 
> Well, I'd like to think that we could eliminate all of these. Without
> some of them them it becomes much more difficult or impossible to
> implement some of meta classes.

I agree with this list with a couple of exceptions:

> 
>   _RWSTD_NO_CLASS_PARTIAL_SPEC
>   _RWSTD_NO_BOOL
> 
> I can live with keeping the following, but a modern compiler should
> really support these
> 
>   _RWSTD_NO_TYPENAME
>   _RWSTD_NO_EXPLICIT
>   _RWSTD_NO_EXPLICIT_ARG
>   _RWSTD_NO_FRIEND_TEMPLATE
>   _RWSTD_NO_FUNC_PARTIAL_SPEC
>   _RWSTD_NO_NEW_FUNC_TEMPLATE_SYNTAX
>   _RWSTD_NO_NEW_CLASS_TEMPLATE_SYNTAX
>   _RWSTD_NO_INLINE_MEMBER_TEMPLATES /* not used att all */
>   _RWSTD_NO_NAMESPACE

The macro can probably go but we might need to continue
to support _RWSTD_NAMESPACE() and add namespace renaming
(including std).

>   _RWSTD_NO_LONG_DOUBLE
>   _RWSTD_NO_LONG_LONG

This one can't go until the next standard has been ratified
and EDG eccp supports long long in strict mode.

In general, my feeling is that starting perhaps as early as
4.3 but certainly 5.0 we should feel free to assume a C++ 03
conforming compiler unless there is some value in doing
otherwise (e.g., supporting users who wish to compile with
exceptions disabled).

Martin

>   _RWSTD_NO_WCHAR_T
>   _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_WCHAR_T
> 
>> Brad.
>>


Mime
View raw message