Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> writes: > We could decide not to do anything about this, but I don't think it's a > non-issue. With -std=gnu++98 g++ accepts this invalid code. That is, > it is a g++ extension, and the code is properly rejected with > -pedantic-errors. We could decide to carry the extension forward to > -std=gnu++0x. Or we could decide to carry the extension forward to > -std=gnu++0x when -fpermissive is used. Or we could decide to just drop > the extension. > > The main problem with the last option is that it complicates the > migration of existing gnu++98 programs to gnu++0x. It becomes necessary > to add constexpr to use gnu++0x. Unfortunately, gnu++98 rejects > constexpr. So there is no simple way to modify this program to be both > valid gnu++98 and valid gnu++0x. That makes the transition more > difficult. > > It seems to me that it would be better for our users to accept this code > in gnu++0x mode with -fpermissive.
I agree. I used to use this feature a lot, and indeed that was the primary reason I _didn't_ use -pedantic-errors. It's nice that C++0x has an official way to support this feature (it seems very silly that C++98 didn't), but there are surely many projects that don't want to commit to C++0x just yet. [Recently I went through and changed all my uses of "static const float" fields to use inline static methods instead, which is at least portable, but yuck, how ugly is that...] BTW, if it's decided that `-fpermissive' should be necessary, I think the error message should note that ... -Miles -- Once, adj. Enough.
