Taking your questions out of order: > 2. Are the replacement features in the same headers? The above > won't > work if the old and new features are in different headers. It > looks like > the powers that be tried to make that the case but I haven't > looked hard.
I'm afraid I don't know. Presumably someone knows all about the newer facilities that made the deprecated facilities obsolete, but that information doesn't seem to have made it into the standard. > 1. There are people who may need to support code bases across > multiple > compiler versions and multiple compilers and even within one > compiler > across a version of C++ or two. I think it would be good to make > sure > that each feature to be removed has a feature macro for the new > replacing feature so for builds against older C++ versions and > compilers > can know when to switch when the new feature is available. The question is, once someone writes code that uses a new/better facility in place of a deprecated/removed facility, would they really want or need to keep around the code that uses the removed facility? How would they benefit by doing so? It seems that what we really want is feature-test macros for the new facilities that made these obsolete. Personally, I don't even know in what standard they were introduced; I can only guess that it was probably C++11. Do we want to continue to expand that table? Clark _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
