Stefan Teleman wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> So, if standards compliance is key, then lets have a *full* case >> detailing the following:
> These requirements are completely beyond the scope and intent of this > ARC Case. I tend to agree with Stefan here - what is wrong with a case that simply adds a new component without resetting the expectations surrounding the current one? In other words, how is this case architecturally different from our other recent cases that added commands that were similar-but-not-replacements-for existing ones? Adding a new command or library to the repo is a separable act from deciding to promote one of them as a preferred version. If the compiler team wishes to follow your suggestions in a new case that attempts to standardize on a newer C++ STL, that would be OK with me; however, forcing *this* case to do more than articulate what Stefan has already said about mixing and matching seems a bit much. -John
