▲ | bla3 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think that might be true of the language committee, but there's presumably a huge crowd of people with existing c++ code bases that would like to have a different path forward than just hoping that the committee changes priorities. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | pjmlp 6 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is what many of us have done moving into managed languages, with native libraries when required to do so. The remaining people driving where the language goes have other priorities in mind like reflection. The profiles that were supposed to be so much better than the Safe C++ proposal, none of them made it into C++26, and it remains to be seen if we ever will see a sensible preview implementation for C++29. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|