5 ms·
> Clang begs to differ on that point http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html Impressive! I see that exported templates got
by sltkr 13y ago
> Clang begs to differ on that point http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html
Impressive! I see that exported templates got scrapped in the latest standard -- they probably never supported that.
In any case, my point wasn't that Clang was bad (I think Clang is very good) but that the few limitations that might exist in Clang or GCC are probably not holding back C99 adoption.
- mitchty 13y agoI'll just note, that after coming back to C after a while in ruby/python/ungh, perl land everything in C99 and C11 has been a welcome change. Seeing lack of adoption to things like just stdbool.h or even C99 initializer syntax is somewhat amusing. I understand backwards compatibility and all but there seems a general unwillingness to abandon C89 which I can only think is due to the microsoft toolchain. As to c++ support clang has been really spearheading the implementation of new c++ standards and last I recall they even found bugs or inconsistencies. It always pays to have at least one implementation before standardizing I think.