On 4/28/2020 5:11 PM, Herring, Davis via Ext wrote:
>>>> Using the details below, I'd like y'all to consider: do we want to
>>>> fix this issue, or leave it as-is because better mechanisms will
>>>> eventually lead us to deprecate __func__?
>>> Leave it alone.
>> +1
>>
>> Stability/compatibility is a major feature.
> I have trouble interpreting the above exchange. You're agreeing with "leave it alone", which sounds like JF's option "leave it as-is because better mechanisms will eventually lead us to deprecate __func__". That plan doesn't sound like "[s]tability/compatibility"; did you mean never to deprecate it?
>
> Meanwhile, the whole issue here is a question of compatibility between (versions of) implementations, where there is known significant divergence; is the "major feature" compatibility between those implementations in the future, or is it bug-compatibility with their current states?

I didn't realize that. Sorry. I saw a potential C incompatibility.


>
> Davis
> _______________________________________________
> Ext mailing list
> Ext_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.isocpp.org_mailman_listinfo.cgi_ext&d=DwICAg&c=u6LDEWzohnDQ01ySGnxMzg&r=-ypbxfA15hWRWp5mAlnCkA&m=S6iNMVnwPesWYDdKS3lRPX4rHeK-y6oo7gSIAREPhgY&s=ys4_r4YsKeEMYDpbn0Puq-7-7xM3RACHS5P0XqXBcx0&e=
> Link to this post: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.isocpp.org_ext_2020_04_13430.php&d=DwICAg&c=u6LDEWzohnDQ01ySGnxMzg&r=-ypbxfA15hWRWp5mAlnCkA&m=S6iNMVnwPesWYDdKS3lRPX4rHeK-y6oo7gSIAREPhgY&s=Q7kGOc4vo3hItw9G0zbJByvm3ELPJfl7tfIYufi4Izo&e=