> Thanks, I was wrong about that. > > Then I think we should just bite the bullet and provide the new > behaviour. If we do have an abi_tag on those types in the next release > then we can preserve the old behaviour in the old ABI and use the > C++11 semantics for the abi_tagged type, which will be used for both > C++03 and C++11 code. I am not too concerned that people who use a > meaningless modifier in C++03 code get the C++11 behaviour. If they > really want %g or %G then they shouldn't use fixed|scientific.
Does that mean abi_tag will be enabled with separate compiler flag / define rather than checking against the __cplusplus value?
