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

[Richard Smith]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>

I think it would also be useful to have a "strictly conforming" (or as
close as we can reasonably get) mode, controlled by a macro.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150812/3c5965b1/attachment.html>