On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, skaller wrote: | | On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 20:34 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, skaller wrote: | > | > | I should point out retaining 'old' features can create a | > | significant maintenance burden for gcc developers, | > | > In this specific case, what are they? | | You're in a better position than me to determine that. | I don't know: it's a generalisation from experience | with half a dozen compiler development projects I track.
Yes, that is why I asked `in this specific case'. I have no problem with letting the `old' headers as they are without adding new stuff to them -- it would break less old or existing codes not to add to those headers than removing them. So, except the mechanical annual copyright update, there is no much those headers require us to do on regular basis. We don't need to update them with newer allocation strategy, thready safety, default allocators, etc. They fact that they are not exactly like the tr1 hasj containers is not an issue -- that is precisely they are there for compatibility. -- Gaby
