7 ms·
The justification will, of course, be that the other options break digraph support on some ancient platform that has no public spec and will never sunset - like
by kelseyfrog 1y ago
The justification will, of course, be that the other options break digraph support on some ancient platform that has no public spec and will never sunset - likely one IBM AS/400 in a basement with a 45 year uptime.
Out of "respect for existing deployments," the syntax must accommodate the relic even though no one has seen it outside of the folklore of one 1993 Usenet post.
Every tool chain will begrudgingly implement it and then years later when someone proposes removing it the counter argument will be, "we can't remove it now someone is using it!" The someone, of course, is a hobbyist on the mailing list whose project depends critically in the feature.
- bongodongobob 1y agoWell, they're still in use. I've encountered 3 in the last 5 years of consulting. Just because your startup doesn't have one doesn't mean they don't exist in the manufacturing world. Are they ubiquitous? No. Are they rare? Depends on the industry.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoPerfect! The standards committee will be able to reference this reply the next time they justify eye-bleeding syntax instead of having to go mine Usenet. Thank you.
- chris_wot 1y agoAnd the standards committee will be correct.
- wat10000 1y agoWhen you say they're still in use, do you mean AS/400s or digraphs?
- bongodongobob 1y agoAS/400s
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y agoI have to ask, do you actually mean AS/400, or IBM i? Most current development for IBM i is done in PASE. I work in IBM i, and nobody I know is still writing C++ for the ILE. I imagine most of the ILE C++ is in maintenance mode and probably not using anything as modern as even C++20.
- bongodongobob 1y agoTo be fair, idk about the software side of it. I just had to consider that they actually existed and were running stuff in the environment. However, one was a VM, at an auto repair shop, believe it or not.
- cyphar 1y agoOkay, but how many of them are going to have new software running on them built using C++31? If the toolchains are all stuck on C++11 (or more likely, C++98) then it doesn't really matter what C++31 will or won't do.
- bongodongobob 1y agoNo idea, but the vendor was still supporting it.
- esrauch 1y agoThe question isnt whether such cases exist, but instead whether they actually need c++26 and what the downsides are to everyone else if c++31 or whatever is still constrained by it.
- sagarm 1y agoAnd what C++ version where these systems on? Have they even made it to C++11, let alone C++23?