Re: C++11

Markus Wanner <[email protected]> Wed, 14 May 2014 03:13:24 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 05/13/2014 11:56 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> It may take some effort to introduce all the C++11 features being 
> discussed here.

Absolutely, yes. I see no pressure on that, though. (And no, I don't
think we need to introduce *all* those features. I'd like to have the
option to use them where applicable.)

> Getting rid of things that don't work in C++11, well, 
> that's somethingg we'll have to do anyway.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here. monotone 1.1 compiles on
gcc and clang with C++11 enabled. I'm not aware of anything that doesn't
work.

> But factoring or 
> refactoring in new C++11 features is probably going to cost us more 
> time than it saves.  Unless, of course, there are serious plans to 
> introduce major new facilities into monotone where the improved clarity 
> of the code will benefit us.

Sure, there's a trade-off. The way you put it makes me think the bare
impression of a living project is already worth the change...

And yes, I have some itches with monotone that I'd like to scratch. And
I'd like to scratch them the C++11 way.

> The way we're talking, it almost seems the C++11 is itself a new 
> platform.

It mostly is an extension of the existing standards. There are very few
legal C++98 constructs that C++11 doesn't tolerate. Monotone doesn't use
any of those.

Regards

Markus Wanner

_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 242 B)