Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78592 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2008 18:32:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jun 2008 18:32:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 29012 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2008 18:33:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 28948 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2008 18:33:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 28925 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jun 2008 18:33:00 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:33:00 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (208.30.140.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:32:11 +0000 Received: from exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com (exchmail01.blue.roguewave.com [10.22.129.22]) by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m5BIWR4S028825 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:32:27 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Empty member initializers Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:32:15 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Empty member initializers Thread-Index: AcjLS73wmX6hjKnOQP2OmAkB1MVnqAAAm+SgACLiyiAAANaPUA== References: From: "Travis Vitek" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org =20 Eric Lemings wrote: >=20 > >Travis Vitek wrote: >> =20 >>=20 >> This all gets back to the discussion we were having a few weeks ago >> about which compiler features we should expect the compiler=20 >> 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. _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 _RWSTD_NO_LONG_DOUBLE _RWSTD_NO_LONG_LONG _RWSTD_NO_WCHAR_T _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_WCHAR_T >Brad. >