Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 10
    ...and a couple of years later, I finally understood what export would actually have given us, and what not... and now I wholeheartedly agree with the EDG people: It would not have brought us what most people (myself in '11 included) think it would, and the C++ standard is better off without it. Commented Nov 19, 2015 at 10:27
  • 6
    @DevSolar : this paper is political, repetitive and badly written. that's not usual standard level prose there. Uneedingly long and boring, saying basically 3 times the same things accross tens of pages. But I am now informed that export is not export. That's a good intel ! Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 9:51
  • 1
    @v.oddou: Good developer and good technical writer are two seperate skillsets. Some can do both, many can't. ;-) Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 9:58
  • 1
    @v.oddou The paper isn't just badly written, it's disinformation. Also it's a spin on reality: what are actually extremely strong arguments for exports are mixed in a way to make it sound like they are against export: “discovering numerous ODRrelated holes in the standard in the presence of export. Before export, ODR violations didn’t have to be diagnosed by the compiler. Now it’s necessary because you need to combine internal data structures from different translation units, and you can’t combine them if they’re actually representing different things, so you need to do the checking.” Commented Dec 14, 2019 at 1:20
  • 1
    @DevSolar I still don't see a case made against export in the paper. (I see a case for export.) Commented Dec 19, 2019 at 4:11