C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] n2743 Volatile C++ Compatibility

From: Uecker, Martin <Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 16:54:34 +0000
Am Samstag, den 22.05.2021, 11:25 -0400 schrieb Aaron Ballman via Liaison:
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:49 AM Philipp Klaus Krause via Liaison
> <liaison_at_[hidden]g> wrote:
> > Am 22.05.21 um 16:08 schrieb Robert Seacord via Liaison:

> > The remaining rationale apparently is just 'C++ removed the feature, so
> > we should, too', which also seems a rather weak one to me.
> Some of the deprecations touch on interfaces that would plausibly show
> up in headers shared between C and C++ (specifically, volatile on
> return types and on parameter types), so those particular cases are of
> importance for compatibility between C and C++.

Deprecating volatile on return types seems like a good idea,
but on parameters it has a valid uses. I find the suggestion
that one can copy those into a new variable not very convincing.
It would be another special exception. We should make the
language simpler and not more complicated.

There is also no reason to include qualifiers in prototypes,
so these do not have to leak implementation details. One
could consider deprecating all qualifiers on parameters in
function declarations that are not part of a function
definitions. This would make more sense to me.


Received on 2021-05-22 11:54:42