[lsb-discuss] ISO standards for LSB standards after 3.1?
mats at wichmann.us
Fri Sep 27 17:13:24 UTC 2013
On 09/27/2013 10:45 AM, Dallman, John wrote:
> Mats Wichmann wrote:
>> c++11 is not in the 5.0 roadmap, fwiw.
> Oh, dear. That may force me to abandon the use of LSB.
> I produce software components that are written in C and C++. Some parts of the
> company are very keen to use C++11 features in new code. If I can't keep C++11
> code out of those components until I have an LSB that supports them, then I
> won't be able to use LSB for them.
> If the situation is that LSB will never support C++11, I should start making my
> plans to drop LSB now.
No, that's not the case. The situation was that while making the plans
for 5.0, we were told pretty definitively that implementations
(libstdc++/g++) were not ready yet to require C++11. So we didn't.
There /is/ a task to uplift the level of C++ support to match relatively
current libstdc++ usage. Maybe that will be enough? Also, since 5.0
has been considerably slower getting to the finish line than
anticipated, maybe the situation I refer to ("not ready") is no longer true?
More information about the lsb-discuss