On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, skaller wrote: | | On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: | > skaller wrote: | > | > > I think this is the wrong idea. Deprecated does carry a lot | > > of weight. It allows a new compiler without a legacy | > > to elide the feature and specify it is ISO compliant | > > 'minus' the deprecated features, which is quite different | > > from 'non-compliant'. | > | > are you sure? I thought conformance required deprecated features | > to be allowed
Deprecated features are still part of the language. A conforming compiler can't reject a feature solely based on the fact the the feature is deprecated. More importantly (i.e. the subject that fired up this discussion), existing codes written in conformance to an existing ISO standard won't just vanish because the next standard *may* deprecate some supported features. | yes, it does, but the point is, you can say 'conforms | except deprecated features are removed' in one line. You can also conform modulo bugs in the compiler. One just needs to define what counts as bugs. -- Gaby
