James Dennett wrote:

> I do think it reasonable to require that C++ compilers should, at some time
> in the future, be required to support two compilation modes for C++.  One
> would be there to allow legacy features (such as 0 as an NPC and the implicit
> conversion from string literal to non-const "char *") and the other to allow
> for safer compilation.

It's worth noting that this is Actual Practice in the Real World,
so the committee cannot even consider it. ;)

> Right now we have only the sledgehammer of deprecation with which to hit
> these problems, and there is (IMO) too much resistance to deprecating
> widely used features.  That resistance is somewhat understandable, but also
> damaging.

Having many standard C++ dialects could also be confusing...
but probably less than most compilers' choices of modes/options.

> Implementations are clearly allowed to issue diagnostics for such
> legacy features,

But I prefer not to rely on that.

> but I believe that the C++ Standard
> might be strengthened if for certain pieces of code it required compilers
> to be able to both compile the code and also to issue a diagnostic.

At least one other ISO standard makes such a requirement (Ada).

> AFAIK
> whenever the C++ Standard of today requires a diagnostic the compiler is
> allowed to fail to compile the source code.

That's correct.

--
Valentin Bonnard

---
[ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]
[ Note that the FAQ URL has changed!  Please update your bookmarks.     ]