On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Evan Cheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've lost track of this thread. > Sorry, I tried to answer this question, but it was in the middle of other emails: Let me be clear: Lang's existing proposal seems a fine way to cut in > minimal support for FP_CONTRACT, but it doesn't look like something we'd > want to use more broadly. I'm not really worried with the interim > solution(s), I'm trying to figure out what the end-goal is here. So to sum up: > Is there strong objection to the proposal? > Nope, just on-going discussion. > Is there a concrete alternative proposal? > Not yet. We're looking for a reasonable intermediate solution to allows progress. > I think Lang's approach is a reasonable intermediate solution, and just needs to be clearly documented as such. Anyways, I've been benefiting from discussing the use cases and other concerns with Stephen though; I'm hopeful it can be used to implement a more general solution for C++ and the "almost always on" mode long-term.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
