On 17 April 2014 01:56, Luke Allardyce wrote: >> 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?
I'm going to send a mail later on today, but the plan is that it's not going to depend on __cplusplus at all. That makes it possible to pass the abi_tagged types between C++03 and C++11 code.
