Andrew Pinski-2 wrote:
>
> Actually that was not really really an extension before the standard
> come out. The rules changed with the standardization. Really most of
> GCC extensions to the C++ langauge that exist now (except for a few
> new ones dealing with the C++0x standard) are all legacy extensions
> before there was a standard.
>
> Really it sounds like MS added this extension to their C++ compiler
> before there was a standard. I really think you should learn more
> about this extension and give a fully documented specifications on how
> it works. Right now that is really the current problem with the
> extensions in GCC, is that they are not fully documented on how they
> work so people get confused when the behavior changes slightly.
>
Are you referring now to the "for loop scope" extension, just to be clear?
My general opinion is it serves no one to be regressive about extensions.
You can always advise against using them, and somewhere down the road, the
specs can always decide an extension is worth supporting more conservatively
or adding to a future spec altogether.
It would be interesting for someone to try to make a practical argument that
is anything but a nest of technicalities, as to why ctors and unions
shouldn't be mixable.
In the meantime, I've always intended to hack the bugger (in the always
bandied about GNU tradition) if I must. It bothers me though to think that
no one has charted this territory before.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/I%27m-sorry%2C-but-this-is-unacceptable-%28union-members-and-ctors%29-tf3930964.html#a11150916
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
