Re: AIX with Visual Age C compiler fails to compile 2.1 and later

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

 > Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
 >> > but on the other hand we need to be cognizant of the wide variety
 >> > of C++ compilers in practical use today, not all of which strictly
 >> > conform to the latest standard.
 >> 
 >> 10 years old!?!  Then I'd like to know how old was that compiler.

 > But the latest C++ standard is C++03, which is only two years old.

No, that's still the same standard, but with corrections where things
were a bit too fuzzy.  AFAIK, none of the changes are big enough to
justify the behavior at hand.  Next C++ will be something like C++07
or C++08, but currently that's still C++98.

 > If you code to the intersection of C++98 and C++03 I guess you have a
 > stronger argument (though C++98 is only seven years old, not ten....).

Oops, you're right, 98, not 95 :)


 > I think we're pretty much in agreement, though.

We are :)