------- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-08 16:20 ------- (In reply to comment #12)
> 2- As I see the issue, it depends a lot on the actual timeframe of the > possible > enhancement to the standard. I mean, if we are thinking about C++0x, seems > rather far in time. I think most of our users would not perceive our practice > as randomly going back and forward on something. + the more general consideration that, delivering a C++0x conforming library certainly will involve breaking the ABI in tens of different ways (e.g., I have in front of me the implementation of DR 130, only a very simple and relatively trivial example). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25304
