On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/20/2009 08:07 AM, Dave Korn wrote: > > Richard Guenther wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Dave Korn wrote: > > > > > > BTW, why don't we call this more-flexible-stage-3 "stage 2" any more? > > > > It > > > > sounds a lot like the way that's still described on develop.html. > > > > > > Because "New functionality may not be introduced during this period." is > > > still true for this stage 3 and "support for a new language construct > > > might be added in a front-end" is also not wanted. > > > > Ah, thanks. I missed the discussion when stage 2 fell out of use > > As did I. I've been figuring that a couple of C++0x bits (lambdas, delegating > constructors) could go in during stage 2; but if there's no stage 2 I guess > I'll go ahead and merge the lambda branch during stage 1 rather than try to > nail down all the corner cases first.
That is what I would indeed prefer. Stage 3 is ok for general bugfixes, which includes nailing down corner cases. Thanks, Richard.
