on Mon Nov 05 2012, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
If gnu++11 is used, the goal of the authors isn't portable code, is it? Basically you'd like to 'force' them to use c++11 by taking away the extensions?
For any extension that is just syntactic sugar or not desperately required (as hardware vectorization may be), yes. Their existence is damaging in the long term.
Wow, that doesn't sound good to me. We already have trouble establishing "existing practice" for new features. What you're suggesting would be a serious problem for the process, unless you only want to see major changes to the standard, and no new not-desperately-required-but-nice-to-have "cleanups" or "syntactic sugar." IMO those incremental improvements might be just as important as the big things. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost