On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 1/19/18, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Jason,
>> what do you think about deprecating the ARM-era for-scope handling that
>> allows:
>>void f ()
>>{
>> for (int i = 0;;);
>> i = 2;
>>}
>>
>> we noisily accept that in c++98
On 1/19/18, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Jason,
> what do you think about deprecating the ARM-era for-scope handling that
> allows:
>void f ()
>{
> for (int i = 0;;);
> i = 2;
>}
>
> we noisily accept that in c++98 mode with -fpermissive. It wasn't even
> well formed then. Imple
On Jan 19, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> what do you think about deprecating the ARM-era for-scope handling
I endorse this idea. :-) 20 years is enough for anyone to update their code,
right? :-)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Jason,
what do you think about deprecating the ARM-era for-scope handling that
allows:
void f ()
{
for (int i = 0;;);
i = 2;
}
we noisily accept that in c++98 mode with -fpermissive. It wasn't even
well formed then. Implementing this has some unique requirements in the
name-lo
