Hi Kim, On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:32 PM Kim Barrett <kim.barr...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 2018, at 6:48 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Kim, > > > > is this JEP only about C++14 features or shall we discuss older > > features too? The reason I am asking is that I would like us to > > officially endorse namespaces. Not inline namespaces, just plain old > > namespaces. > > I would like to keep this JEP focused on C++11/14 usage. > > However, it presently describes a process for recording and updating > HotSpot usage. I think that process is pretty close to the de facto > process, which is rarely used successfully because it's not written > down anywhere. > > We could extract that part of the JEP out, formalize, discuss, agree, > and record it. Then you could propose a change and there would be a > process for dealing with the proposal, rather than having it slide > into oblivion because we don't know how to proceed. And the JEP could > be made a bit smaller because it could just refer to that process. >
Yes, I would like that. It would be really good to have a process in place to preserve and actually live a consensus about what features we use. We have the Hotspot Style Guide, but we let it become woefully outdated in the face of new developments. I always smile when I read the "Be sparing with templates." remark - that ship has sailed long ago. --- A small remark to the text of your JEP: "As a rule of thumb, permitting features which simplify writing, and especially reading, code should be encouraged." I would like to add to that that simplifying build error analysis should also be a goal. That directly influences programmer productivity. We had some cases in the recent past where we spent a lot of time scratching our heads over walls of template related compiler errors. (not sure how to reach this goal though, since this seems to be a problem inherent in using C++ templates). Best Regards, Thomas
