Le 2023-11-30 10:07, Dominique Devienne via Boost a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:03 PM Niall Douglas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
There were still some big design mistakes in 11
Isn't that in part what the proposal(s) to break backward compatibility to fix mistakes is/are about? The recognition that mistakes will be made, and we can opt-in explicitly to the fixes?
I can't comment on WG21's effectiveness or not. So this is maybe off-topic. But wouldn't having editions of the language allow for more flexibility regarding BC?
I don't get how it would work regarding ABI/BC. It looks like it would allows solving issues within the language itself (like the uniform initialization mess), but i fail to see how it would allows fixing design issues within the standard library. Or are you suggesting that we have std11, std14, std17 namespaces for standard components?
[2]: https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html
He makes a great point by saying that *if the Standard committee doesn’t do this, someone else will.*. To me it looks just like what Herb Sutter's cppfront is about. Regards, Julien