On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > You were earlier talking about some "unified concept"; weren't you? > Now, it is shifting to library component.
With "unified" I meant that the same concept (range) is present both in the core language and the standard library. And that it would be wise that both definitions are the same. > Option 5 does not say that we have to have a library > that exactly emulates what is in in the core language. No it does not. That is why I am proposing, If it said that, I would add nothing. BTW, if that function existed, the natural consequence would be to define the range-for in terms of that function, not to copy-paste the specification. >> I'm merely implying that this list is suitable for this discussion. It >> looked like you disagree. > yes, I do. Because what you are suggesting is a change to the > the ISO C++ definition. This isn't the proper place for that. > if is an ISO C++ library, then the proper place is a ISO C++ committee forum. Yes, but sadly I'm not part of the committee, and since there are people here that are, I find it useful to post my suggestion here. Are you saying that in the GCC mailing lists we should discuss only the use and implementation of the languages, but not their specifications? Even if those specifications are in a draft status? I find that hard quite radical. Regards.
