incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Empty member initializers
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:26:46 GMT
 
How about member templates?  Are these unilaterally supported by all
compilers now?

Brad.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:01 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Empty member initializers
> 
> 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