On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 10:26:43 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Just like what Apple and Google care about is C++17 and nothing beyond that, meanwhile no compiler vendor selling C and C++ compilers based on clang forks seem to care about upstream ISO C++ compliance.
Hence my surprise about your remark regarding catching up.
Sure, I care most about things that simplify the way I would write C++17ish code: concept, requires, span, char8_t, [[no_unique_address]], bitcast, feature test macros…
That feature test macro approach could turn into a sleeping pill, though. I am in favour of it, but it puts less pressure on compiler vendors. It allows programmers to start using new features with a fall-back, but it also allows vendor to say "it isn't quite done, but you can use that compatibility layer library over there".
Clang does fairly well with C++23, so that is a bit odd, perhaps. I guess some C++20 features are hard to work into their internal representation (IIRC basically an explicit AST).
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/23