On 11/8/2012 6:23 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Nov 05 2012, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
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.
If it starts and ends with the committee. For example, floating whether an idea has merit, implementing it if it appears the path to standardization is viable, gathering use experience, and then presenting it for standardization. If it is rejected, remove it (i.e. allow code to break that uses the experimental extension). If it is accepted as is, great. If it is accepted with modifications, modify it to conform (i.e. allow code to break that uses the experimental extension). In many cases of current extensions, however, we have significant existing practice in other languages. For example, one doesn't need an implementation of "properties" as an extension to C++, one doesn't need an implementation of an "interface" keyword, one doesn't need a "finally" extension, one doesn't need an "event" extension, etc., etc., yet that hasn't stopped MS from implementing them (and a bunch of others). Other implementers do this kind of thing also, but, AFAICT, none of them are even in the ballbark of MS running roughshod over the language with whatever they want. It is one thing if an extension is implemented for possible future standardization (and tweaked or removed pending the results of that) with the intent to gain use experience. It is another when it is simply some vendor deciding they like some feature, adding it, and then promoting its use. That is an abuse of power that fractures the language and destroys portability. Regards, Paul Mensonides