On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:26 PM Chuanqi Xu
Hi René,
Interesting, I didn’t think about it actually. On the one hand, it is surprising to me to heard we don’t miss C++23 train.
Sorry, that was a fast typing mistake on my part. I meant the C++26 train.
On the other hand, the idea to implement it in Clang without the proposal in WG21 looks like pandora’s box to me.
If we did the second point, the code accepted by clang may not be accepted by other compilers. Although it happens now, we don’t want it to be the case. Further more, I feel it makes the position of WG21 to be in a pretty embrassive position.
That is a good point. And it would end up back in using macros to resolve portability in that case. Still worth thinking about in wg21 though. :-) -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supongas Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net