> On 7 Jul 2018, at 10:04, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hans Åberg <[email protected]> writes: > >> The idea is to do it all now, then the change is automatic and the old >> code can just be removed at some point in time, but you would need a >> compiler that can do C++17, too. > > The whole point is that we do not want to rely on C++17 now and don't > want to maintain a full reimplementation of a C++17 feature until we do > when that feature is used only once and in a minor manner. The fallover > strategy for it becoming available is not really of relevance for that > call, but an automatic fallover would mean that we have dormant untested > code that becomes active at different points of time for different > people.
The first step would probably to switch to a later compiler with a flag for an older C++ version. Then one can test later C++ versions in independent builds. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
