New flag for C++Next

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

New flag for C++Next

Jacob Carlborg via cfe-dev
As many of you know, the committee sent C++17 for ISO approval, so any further features voted (including a few other extensions that we have) are likely targeted for a "C++20" or so.  I was wondering if there was going to be another 'temporary' flag (ala c++1x,y,z), and what it was going to be?  Are we starting back over at 'x', continuing to 'a', or forgoing it entirely?

-Erich
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New flag for C++Next

Jacob Carlborg via cfe-dev
Do we know what GCC is going to do?

-- HT

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
As many of you know, the committee sent C++17 for ISO approval, so any further features voted (including a few other extensions that we have) are likely targeted for a "C++20" or so.  I was wondering if there was going to be another 'temporary' flag (ala c++1x,y,z), and what it was going to be?  Are we starting back over at 'x', continuing to 'a', or forgoing it entirely?

-Erich
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New flag for C++Next

Jacob Carlborg via cfe-dev

I don’t know personally, though googling doesn’t really give me any hint. 

 

Just thought maybe we could be the first to the punch here J

 

From: Hubert Tong [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 8:37 AM
To: Keane, Erich <[hidden email]>
Cc: cfe-dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] New flag for C++Next

 

Do we know what GCC is going to do?

-- HT

 

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

As many of you know, the committee sent C++17 for ISO approval, so any further features voted (including a few other extensions that we have) are likely targeted for a "C++20" or so.  I was wondering if there was going to be another 'temporary' flag (ala c++1x,y,z), and what it was going to be?  Are we starting back over at 'x', continuing to 'a', or forgoing it entirely?

-Erich
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New flag for C++Next

Jacob Carlborg via cfe-dev
It is clear to me that it should be -std=c++-2ź.
But to be serious, it make sense to have some sort of -std=c++-next. 
The other idea is that probably there won't be more than 3 standars in next decade, so starting with C++2x should be sufficient.

Piotr


2017-03-07 17:57 GMT+01:00 Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]>:

I don’t know personally, though googling doesn’t really give me any hint. 

 

Just thought maybe we could be the first to the punch here J

 

From: Hubert Tong [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 8:37 AM
To: Keane, Erich <[hidden email]>
Cc: cfe-dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] New flag for C++Next

 

Do we know what GCC is going to do?

-- HT

 

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

As many of you know, the committee sent C++17 for ISO approval, so any further features voted (including a few other extensions that we have) are likely targeted for a "C++20" or so.  I was wondering if there was going to be another 'temporary' flag (ala c++1x,y,z), and what it was going to be?  Are we starting back over at 'x', continuing to 'a', or forgoing it entirely?

-Erich
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev



_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New flag for C++Next

Jacob Carlborg via cfe-dev
 I think we should go with 20a rather than 20x, because we may run out of letters otherwise when sticking to a 3yr cycle. However, we should coordinate with the gcc folks to be consistent. 

-Aaron

On Mar 7, 2017 7:32 AM, "Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev" <[hidden email]> wrote:
It is clear to me that it should be -std=c++-2ź.
But to be serious, it make sense to have some sort of -std=c++-next. 
The other idea is that probably there won't be more than 3 standars in next decade, so starting with C++2x should be sufficient.

Piotr


2017-03-07 17:57 GMT+01:00 Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]>:

I don’t know personally, though googling doesn’t really give me any hint. 

 

Just thought maybe we could be the first to the punch here J

 

From: Hubert Tong [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 8:37 AM
To: Keane, Erich <[hidden email]>
Cc: cfe-dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] New flag for C++Next

 

Do we know what GCC is going to do?

-- HT

 

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Keane, Erich via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

As many of you know, the committee sent C++17 for ISO approval, so any further features voted (including a few other extensions that we have) are likely targeted for a "C++20" or so.  I was wondering if there was going to be another 'temporary' flag (ala c++1x,y,z), and what it was going to be?  Are we starting back over at 'x', continuing to 'a', or forgoing it entirely?

-Erich
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev



_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Loading...