Re: C++11 (abridged version)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 10/20/2016 08:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:07:58 +0100
>>
>> On #4 (policy for newer standard versions), as I've been saying many
>> times in the past week, I think that what matters is whether there's
>> reasonably widespread compiler availability, meaning the latest stable
>> releases of distributions include a compiler for the standard, or it's
>> easy to get one by installing some optional package.  If reasonably
>> available, then we should switch, and take advantage of the great work
>> our compiler and standards friends have been doing.
> 
> IMO, this is too vague for a policy.  I proposed a much more
> quantitative criterion, one that doesn't run the risk of triggering
> long disputes with no clear-cut ways of making a decision.  I'm okay
> with other criteria, as long as they are clear, easily applied, and
> don't require subjective interpretation.

Agreed.  That's why I concluded with:

~~~~
Going forward past C++11, since "reasonable availability" is not
quantifiable, Eli suggested the policy of

  "(...) waiting until the oldest compiler which supports that newer
  standard is at least 3 years old (like GCC 4.8.1 is today)."

And I agree with that.  (I'd prefix it with "at least".)
~~~~

I hope to have not misquoted you.  If I have, I apologize.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves