[cfe-dev] [libcxx] Policy with respect to language extensions

[Chris Lattner]

> On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Gonzalo BG <gonzalobg88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In the following I mean by "language extension" anything that is not in the C++11/14 draft nor accepted in the C++1z draft.
> 
> Since I use libc++ I've seen a tendency to enable/experiment with language extensions silently by default. This has always resulted into trouble for me: 
> 
> Three cases come to mind:
> 
> - "return {...}; into a std::tuple"
> - constexpr invoke
> - std::bitset::const_reference
> 
> These extensions make sense, users might expect them, and as a consequence it is easy to use these extensions without knowing that one is writing non-portable code. 
> 
> I like that people experiment and add extensions to libc++ and wish it would be done more often as long as the extensions are always opt-in (e.g. put behind a macro). 
> 
> Does libc++ has a policy with respect to extensions?
> 
> If so, what is this policy?

IMO, libc++ should follow the clang policy on extensions:
http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150812/6a2da6ec/attachment.html>