search for: fatalist

...m> wrote: >> >> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just >> worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year >> discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking >> double the time. > > Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) > But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve > learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code > churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, > drop unnecessary...

I recently upgraded wine from 0.9.7 to 0.9.12 and while checking out that things were working I started up Google Earth but had the following error in terminal: Message from syslogd@TheVoid at Sun May 7 02:40:26 2006 ... TheVoid kernel: Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'GoogleEarth.exe', page c125be60) Message from syslogd@TheVoid at Sun May 7 02:40:26 2006 ... TheVoid

...AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary code, upgrade variou...

...;zturner at google.com> wrote: > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry > that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so > that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. > > > Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) > But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve > learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn > we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop > unnecessary...

...urner at google.com<mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote: If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary code, upgrade variou...

...gle.com> wrote: > > > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that > 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any > actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. > > > > Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) > > But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned > to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll > encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary...

...;> >> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that >> 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any >> actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. >> >> >> >> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) >> >> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned >> to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll >> encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, d...

...gle.com> wrote: > > > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry > that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so > that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. > > > > Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) > > But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve > learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn > we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop > unneces...

If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. Are the issues specific to C++17 additions to the standard library? What if you allow C++17 language features but not C++17 library features? I'm guessing this is too