Re:Initialization in C++ is bonkers (2017)
by motorest on Friday May 16, 2025 @04:55AM
(#44003181)
> I don't really care if it isn't portable.
You don't care because your job is not to ensure that a new release of C++ doesn't break production code. You gaze at your navel and pretend that's the universe everyone is bound to. But there are others using C++, and using it in production software. Some of them care, and your subjective opinions don't have an impact in everyone else's requirements.
> I only have to work with Clang, personally.
Read Clang's manual and check what compiler flags you need to flip to get that behavior. It's already there.
Re:Initialization in C++ is bonkers (2017)
by loeg on Friday May 16, 2025 @03:54PM
(#44009223)
Lmao. You've misread both of my upthread comments and have somehow arrived at the conclusion that this justifies personal attacks. There's just no discussion to be had here.
You don't care because your job is not to ensure that a new release of C++ doesn't break production code. You gaze at your navel and pretend that's the universe everyone is bound to. But there are others using C++, and using it in production software. Some of them care, and your subjective opinions don't have an impact in everyone else's requirements.
> I only have to work with Clang, personally.
Read Clang's manual and check what compiler flags you need to flip to get that behavior. It's already there.