On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > skaller wrote: > > > I think this is the wrong idea. Deprecated does carry a lot > > of weight. It allows a new compiler without a legacy > > to elide the feature and specify it is ISO compliant > > 'minus' the deprecated features, which is quite different > > from 'non-compliant'. > > are you sure? I thought conformance required deprecated features > to be allowed
yes, it does, but the point is, you can say 'conforms except deprecated features are removed' in one line. A standard is a very long winded document with a single practical purpose -- the ability to say "ISO C++" in two words and mean 1000 pages by it. It has no other semantic function than saving paper :) This makes it very easy for people to make purchasing or usage choices (instead of having to read 1000 pages of specifications for every product). So a list of deprecated features has the purpose of allowing one to say "ISO C++ minus deprecations" and expect the resulting compiler is still a good one to use, particularly if you can convert your compiler from "ISO C++" to "ISO C++--" with a single switch. You can view this as a parametrized version is C++, and so the compiler still judged conformant to a closely related standard. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net