2aab7839   
   From: francis.glassborow@btinternet.com   
      
   On 26/06/2011 03:23, Brendon wrote:   
   >   
   > I dont think these extra restrict qualifiers are a good idea. I   
   > understand that they seem to be the most feasable way to do a minimal   
   > change to the language in order to achieve what they want, but I feel C   
   > ++ is going to suffering from this change in the long run. We have had   
   > some similar changes in the past that did not work out, and I thin the   
   > noexcept is also going to have similar porblems. We have exception   
   > specifications, noexcept, const correctness and now these more generic   
   > restrictions (of which there can be any number of varients).   
   >   
   Would you please distinguish between features of Standard C++ and those   
   added as extensions by an implementation.   
      
   Actually we need the willingness to try new features as extensions to   
   the language because that is the way that we gain experience of what can   
   be achieved (and at what cost) _before_ they are considered for addition   
   to the Standard. But we also need programmers to understand what is   
   portable (because it is mandated by the Standard) and what is not   
   (because it is just an implementation extension).   
      
   These uses of restrict have nothing to do with the Standard. I suspect   
   restrict is being used because it is a keyword of C and so its reuse for   
   other purposes is extremely unlikely to adversely affect existing code.   
      
   Francis   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)