undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshric6y ago0 comments

Thanks, so from "Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a commercial implementation should be considered", this precludes stuff that may only exist in clang, gcc, glibc, etc.? If so, why?

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

AaronBallman6y ago

I wouldn't read into "commercial" there, I think we meant "production-quality" instead. (We should fix that!)

Basically, we prefer seeing features that real users have used as opposed to an experimental branch of a compiler that doesn't have usage experience. Knowing it can be implemented is one thing, but knowing users want to use it is more compelling.

parenthesis6y ago

You could interpret that as "in common use by a commercial[ly used] implementation".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse