Thanks Chandler. Please feel free to open that discussion on cfe-dev. Howard
On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Howard Hinnant <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not clear to me that the addition of ext/slist is a path we want to > take with libc++. It bloats the library. It requires debugging, > maintenance, and unit tests. There exists a C++11 replacement that is well > specified and well tested. > > We don't need another C++03 std::lib. Plenty of those already exists. > libc++ was envisioned to be a C++0x library. There are tons of old > extensions libc++ doesn't have. Are we going to implement all of them? Even > the ones that have C++11 replacements? Even the ones that introduce their > own set of problems? Where do we draw the line? > > These bring up all very good points. I'll save most of the discussion for a > proper thread on cfe-dev on the subject, but I don't think there is any > disagreement that we don't want yet another C++03 lib. > > I've reverted the patches introducing slist in r136577. I think it might be a > useful thing to include specifically to aid in migration from other standard > libraries, but clearly that's the discussion that needs to be had on the > proper list. > > If we ever do want slist, it will need proper tests, and a more bullet proof > implementation *specifically because* it is adding more maintenance cost to > the library. Without those, there's no question at all. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
