4 ms·
That's fair. I suppose the next question would be what it would take to get the committee to stop kicking the can down the road and actually vote to break ABI,
by aw1621107 7y ago
That's fair. I suppose the next question would be what it would take to get the committee to stop kicking the can down the road and actually vote to break ABI, since "considered" is a fairly weak promise. Perhaps they're waiting to see what people come up with?
- steveklabnik 7y agoI was not in attendance, but from what I read on /r/cpp, at least some people thought that the discussion was brought up in sort of a suboptimal way, and that there was actually a lot of support in the room for breaking the ABI. Regardless, I think that what was decided is clearly in this direction.
- aw1621107 7y agoI'm curious to see where C++ will go from here on out then. If only they were open to breaking API too to fix things like unordered_map... By the way, I know Rust doesn't guarantee a stable ABI, but has Rust gotten significant improvements out of not making that guarantee?
- steveklabnik 7y agoThe main improvement is not spending time and energy to define such a thing and maintain it. We have done some breaking stuff too, and that has been useful, but in my mind, that’s less important.
- aw1621107 7y agoThat's fair. Thanks!