Re: C++ enhancements

Re: C++ enhancements

[Frank Adams]

[I have cross-posted this from comp.lang.c++ to comp.lang.c, comp.lang.ada,
and comp.lang.misc, with followups directed to comp.lang.misc.  Responses
relating to one of these languages in particular should be directed to the
appropriate place.]

In article <2249424b:4311@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>I'll state this as a more general proposed rule for the 'what should we hack
>into C++ next' game:
>
>    OPTIMIZATION HINTS SHOULD BE PROPOSED AS OPTIONAL PRAGMAS, IF AT ALL

I have trouble with pragmas.  The problem is not, perhaps, intrinsic; but it
is very much in evidence in every language where I have seen them.  The
problem is that each vendor is allowed to define their own pragmas, with no
guarantee that someone else won't use the same pragma for something entirely
different.

If pragmas are going to be used, they should be as much part of the language
standard as the syntax.  A vendor may choose to follow or ignore whatever
pragmas they choose to; but *if* a pragma is not ignored, it should be used
as specified.

To expedite the introduction of new pragmas, there should be a central
repository of pragma definitions.  Compiler writers should be able to define
a new pragma, and within a few weeks have it officially recorded in the
repository.  The name may not be the one requested, but the functionality
should be.  (A review committee to go over the pragma and suggest
improvements is a tempting idea, but should not be permitted to slow down
the process.)
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108