Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Would there be any objections to the removal of the workarounds for
pre-ISO C++ compilers like
Pretty much any up-to-date compiler handles these correctly today.
Also not all such uses are guarded by the workarounds and I lack a
dumb enough compiler to check their correct usage.
Any thoughts?
Richard.
There are still a lot of gcc 2.95 and related compilers in use
today. I prefer to leave them but let them rot unless there is a
compelling reason to remove them now.
I see. I'd remove them only to unclutter the source and maybe
increase maintainability if formally stating we require an ISO
conformant compiler. Oh - we do so already:
<quote README>
This version incorporates other minor source code changes to support
compilation using g++ version 3.1 and some improvements to POOMA
Fields. Compilation using g++ version 2.96 is no longer supported.
g++ version 3.1 is freely available at http://gcc.gnu.org/. POOMA has
also been tested using KAI C++ 4.0e.
</quote>
Richard.