🚀 go-pugleaf

[This is starting to drift away from the topic of C++ standardization;
I've cross-posted to gnu.misc.discuss and redirected followups. -fjh.]

kanze@gabi.gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) writes:

>Hmmm...  I believe in fact that the GNU coding guidelines actually
>encourages you to use GNU extensions in everything but the compiler
>itself (since it has to be compiled with the native C compiler).

No, that's not the case.  The GNU standards document says

| 	Whether to use these extensions in implementing your
| 	program is a difficult question.
...
| 	With some extensions, it might be easy to provide both alternatives.
| 	For example, you can define functions with a "keyword" `INLINE' and
| 	define that as a macro to expand into either `inline' or nothing,
| 	depending on the compiler.
|
| 	In general, perhaps it is best not to use the extensions if you can
| 	straightforwardly do without them, but to use the extensions if they
| 	are a big improvement.

It further suggests that widely-used programs such as emacs or compiler
programs such as gcc should not use any extensions at all.

I think this is a reasonable position.  I don't think anyone on the C++
standards committee believes that all C++ programs should be strictly
conforming.

The GNU standards document also says that GNU programs should be
upwardly compatible with the relevant ANSI and POSIX standards.

--
Fergus Henderson             	WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              	PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]