Re: C++11 (abridged version)

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> At this point, I find myself in an odd position --- several people
> have been telling me offlist how they wanted C++11 like yesterday already.
> There was support in last week's discussions as well.  OTOH, I'm not
> sure whether I can assume that silence on the list means "go ahead".
> So I think I'll need to call a bold move and say that if there are no
> actual identified blockers, or if people reply to this email with
> approval, I'm going to proceed with the straw man 'path toward
> C++11' proposal at
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00381.html> real
> soon.
>
> [1] - most of the discussion happened in two threads here:
>
>  - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00223.html
>  - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00341.html

Hi Pedro,
I kept silence on the discussion in the past several weeks, because
I don't know much on C++.  I can't think of any reason we should
block C++ 11 transition.  I've got "C++ Primer, fifth edition" on my
desk.  It covers C++ 11 :)

It is a right thing to move to C++ 11.  However, we need to think
about the priority of each work.  We still have bugs to fix, new features
to add, patches to review.  They are very important in the short term,
next release, for example.  We can't afford several months doing code
conversion without any real development and bug fixes.  Code
conversion should be a background task, running along with development
and bug fixes for some years.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)