[libstdc++-v3] Remove std::construct and std::destroy

[David Sankel]

--- Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMO, code that used to work should continue to
> work where this is not too
> > difficult to support.  So I think the definitions
> should remain in the
> > library subject to #ifndef __STRICT_ANSI__.
> 
> I disagree. This is why we have the backward include
> directory. I think 
> code that's not in the standard and from the
> original HP implementation 
> should either be removed, or put into backward. 
> 
> Since removal appears to be controversial, perhaps
> the backward idea is 
> better. 

Sorry, I'm new to this list.  Why is removal
controversial?  I think that if people want these
extra things they can maintain something outside of
libstdc++.  It doesn't seem that maintaining
compatability with non-standard code should be a
design goal (it is libstdc++ and not libgnuc++).

David J. Sankel

> 
> I think the goal should be to have
> standards-conformant headers, and 
> older/deprecated headers available by request.
> 
> -benjamin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/