"Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Joseph S. Myers said: | > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Zack Weinberg wrote: | >> I am with Joe Buck in the opinion that even a 1% performance penalty for | >> implementing (A) [or (B)] would be too much -- I suggest this be fixed by | >> convincing the C++ committee to allow (C) and not just by phase 1 | >> transformations, thus allowing the existing implementation to conform. | > | > I don't think solutions starting with convincing the committee to fix a | > working part of the standard are generally that practical! | | When the standard is arguably buggy -- if nothing else, it diverges from C
C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom? If you do feel so strongly about this, why don't you invest time in sorting this with the committees? -- Gaby
