> Furthermore, since we usually are in the business of standardizing > things > that users otherwise have to write many times themselves: Has SG10 > considered actively defining a <std-forward-compat> header library > that does > the above for all the things it can, the idea being that users who > have to > target multiple implementations at various stages of conformance can > include > <std-forward-compat> after all their standard library's own headers > and > write their code more closely against the actual latest IS's std:: > library, > without having to reinvent the above by hand (incompatibly on > different > systems), as a transition tool to help encourage people to adopt the > latest > standard?
That's a very interesting idea, but might it make more sense for it to be done by LWG, as opposed to SG10? Clark _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
