Jan Kundrát <[email protected]> wrote: >> And no, the languages are _not_ "source-incompatible". That would be a >> scandal! > > You might argue about this, but that doesn't change these facts.
I think nobody had doubts that *theoretical* such examples can be constructed (I even mentioned the case of name collission on which your example builds). The question is how often does this occur in *real-world* projects. > does not change the fact that there *is* code out there Your example is not "code out there". I would bet that the name collission case hits less than 1% of existing projects. If name collissions would be the only case, it would not even be worth to discuss these things. The more restrictive syntax for string concatenation (mentioned in some bug posted in this thread) is a more realistic issue, but at least in this case, the project has already fixed the problem. Again: Numbers are needed; somebody (preferrably somebody with a fast machine, so I am out ;) ) has to try to compile w/test the whole ~x86/~amd64 tree with CXXFLAGS=-std=c++11, and only then one can seriously discuss how "source-incompatible" the languages really are. My guess is still that you will observe less problems than with a minor gcc upgrade, but it is only a guess, of course.
