4 ms·
The C++ standards group should treat this problem as a high priority. If they define something reasonable, we can gradually migrate code to it.
by kwertyoowiyop 3y ago
The C++ standards group should treat this problem as a high priority. If they define something reasonable, we can gradually migrate code to it.
- not_the_fda 3y agoNever going to happen. The standards group doesn't define the tooling. Every vendor has its own set compiler flags, error messages and ABI. Its also used on architectures where the target hardware has to be complied for on a completely different architecture, i.e. embedded devices. Its too complex of a problem to be solved by a committee with competing interests.
- steveklabnik 3y agoNever say never, there is P2656. We'll see! It's more about making things interoperable than mandating a new tool, but it's still something useful in this space. It also links to previous work. https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1323 https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1323