On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:03 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I think that would be most unproductive and misguided. > > Maybe I should step back and restate my original desires. > > I don't want us to move *too quickly* towards an all-STL > implementation, and end up with a hairy mess that's hard to > understand. I've had to debug our STL implementation before, it's not > easy for someone not used to the design. > > I agree that NIH is bad. But I also think mega-patches that do > nothing but replace a huge chunk of existing (working!) code with a > hugely complex interaction of every STL class known to science, is > equally bad. > > I request moderation, not abstinence.
OK, I agree with moderation. Thanks for the elaboration. > > One approach to such a goal is to require that a migration limit > itself to replacing one aspect of the implementation *at a time*, get > that reviewed, applied, and understood, *then* migrate the next > aspect, etc. Replace VEC with the STL vector class, but keep > everything else around it the same. Get it reviewed. Then replace > another piece and get it done. Then another, and another, etc. > > I also think that we'll have enough things to worry about just by > switching compilers, without adding the risks associated with > replacing working code. One step at a time :-) > :-) -- Gaby
