llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com (llewelly) wrote in message news:<86fz98fkkz.fsf@Zorthluthik.local.bar>...
> kuyper@wizard.net (James Kuyper) writes:
>
> > llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com (llewelly) wrote in message news:<86ise9kwoz.fsf@Zorthluthik.local.bar>...
> > ..
> >>     Few. Also, note the current maintainers of g++ are more opposed
> >>     to extensions than not.
> >
> > So, who says you need their permission?
>
> If you wish to run your own project, you don't. However, the most
>     widely used gcc variants are close to the FSF GCC project, and
>     co-operative with it. If an extension is accepted into the FSF
>     GCC project, it will recieve much wider use.

One good way to get it accepted into the FSF GCC project is to do the
work yourself on an unofficial copy, and develop some experience with
it to demonstrate to them that it's worth putting into the official
copy. That can lead to wider exposure, more experience, and if your
idea is good enough, it may become "existing practice" that has to be
included in the standard because everyone's already using it.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

loic.actarus.joly@wanadoo.fr (Lo=EFc Joly) writes:

> llewelly wrote:
>
>> Until very recently, (and perhaps even now) the majority of potential
>>     developers knew C and not C++. Even now, most acutal GCC
>>     developers, from what I can see, know C substantially better than
>>     C++.
>
> I do not know if the expression translates well in English, but I
> would say in French that this is the story of the hen and the egg.

In English it is known as a 'chicken-and-egg problem'.=20

> Since GCC is written in C, people who know C++ and not C (I'm part of
> them) do not participate in GCC, thus GCC is only designed by C
> people, so it should be developped in C.
>
> ;)

Exactly. :) .

IIRC, EDG is also implemented in C. There are a good many sound
    reasons for choosing C as an implementation langauge for
    implementing C++. But those reasons grow weaker as the years go
    by.

However - for an open source C++ implementation, it must be
    recognized that most of those truly interested in contributing
    will both more willing and more effective in C++ than C.=20
   =20

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

kuyper@wizard.net (James Kuyper) writes:

> Lo=EFc Joly <loic.actarus.joly@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<c9l73=
m$1dv$1@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr>...
> ..
>> So, here come my question : Does anyone have another contender ? What =
I=20
>> look for is :
> ..
>> - A compiler written in C++, and in "good" C++
> ..
>> - A compiler that does not care too much about exotic platforms (even =
if=20
>> at least two supported platform seems a minimum)
>
> Those two requirements are in conflict, as far as I'm concerned.
> "good" C++  code produces correct results even on exotic platforms.

The trouble is that exotic platforms may only have partial C++
    support (for example, ARM C++, or C++ without exceptions). At
    some point you must compromise between portability and
    expressiveness.=20

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com (llewelly) wrote in message news:<86ise9kwoz.fsf@Zorthluthik.local.bar>...
..
>     Few. Also, note the current maintainers of g++ are more opposed
>     to extensions than not.

So, who says you need their permission? It's freely available source
code that you're allowed to modify after copying.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

kuyper@wizard.net (James Kuyper) writes:

> llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com (llewelly) wrote in message news:<86ise9kwoz.fsf@Zorthluthik.local.bar>...
> ..
>>     Few. Also, note the current maintainers of g++ are more opposed
>>     to extensions than not.
>
> So, who says you need their permission?

If you wish to run your own project, you don't. However, the most
    widely used gcc variants are close to the FSF GCC project, and
    co-operative with it. If an extension is accepted into the FSF
    GCC project, it will recieve much wider use.

Maybe with wider use of a proposed extension, better guesses about
    its utility, etc, can be made.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Lo=EFc Joly <loic.actarus.joly@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Niall Douglas wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> If one were to patch in support to a major compiler - GCC is handy
>> -=20
> [snip]
>
> It seems from various discussion that gcc is often considered as the
> platform of choice to experiment with the C++ core language.

By who? Sure, there are many posters who say 'GCC is handy', but how
    many people actually use it to implement C++ extensions?
    Few. Also, note the current maintainers of g++ are more opposed
    to extensions than not.

> I do not
> think so.
>
> Even if its GNU status make it really available, it is a production
> compiler, and as such, it has to tackle many elements unnecessary for
> experimentation. Several programming languages, a very wide range of
> supported OS, a source code in C (I don't know why),

ISTR the decision to use C was made in 1987. At that time, the C++
    community was growing exponentially, but it was much smaller than
    the C community. C implementations were availible for more
    platforms, and were more consistent. I don't know if C++ was
    seriously considered, but if GCC had been written in C++
    originally, it would have been more difficult to port, and
    had a smaller audience of potential contributors.

Even now, C89 implementations are much more consistent than C++
    implementations.

Until very recently, (and perhaps even now) the majority of potential
    developers knew C and not C++. Even now, most acutal GCC
    developers, from what I can see, know C substantially better than
    C++.

> a CVS process
> designed for stability, an optimized compilation process...
[snip]

What do you mean by 'optimized compilation process'?

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

llewelly wrote:

> Until very recently, (and perhaps even now) the majority of potential
>     developers knew C and not C++. Even now, most acutal GCC
>     developers, from what I can see, know C substantially better than
>     C++.

I do not know if the expression translates well in English, but I would=20
say in French that this is the story of the hen and the egg.

Since GCC is written in C, people who know C++ and not C (I'm part of=20
them) do not participate in GCC, thus GCC is only designed by C people,=20
so it should be developped in C.

;)

>>a CVS process
>>designed for stability, an optimized compilation process...
>=20
> [snip]
>=20
> What do you mean by 'optimized compilation process'?

Optimising at least a little, compilation time.


--=20
Lo=EFc

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]