On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:48:09PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> Well technically these headers have been deprecated since at least 3.2 > >> (maybe even back in 3.0) with them producing a warning. So I don't > >> know if we should move them or not but we have followed our own rules > >> here. > > > > Sorry, I misread the Subject: what disappeared under my back, without any > > warning nor deprecation period, actually was ext/hash_map and friends. > > Whether or not we've been through a deprecation cycle, I still think > there should be a very high bar for removing APIs from the library.
And moving a header from ext to backward means that programs will not compile. "ext" means "extension", so we already are giving a warning that a feature is non-standard. People that put out distributions are rightly irritated when we pull stuff like this. It's not even good enough to change "ext" to "backward", now you need an autoconf test to find the fine header, so your program compiles with both older and newer gcc's. But they should be using the new unordered containers, you say. But we already tell people that they shouldn't count on any stability in tr1, and maybe later you'll be moving the headers from tr1 to the top level when the committee fully blesses the new containers. Follow the bouncing headers, and practice your autoconf skills.
