home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
- From: rpayne@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Payne)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: typedef not strong
- Date: 20 Feb 1996 15:44:49 GMT
- Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.
- Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
- Message-ID: <4gbgq1$2pr@natasha.rmii.com>
- References: <4g5sm4$dtt@natasha.rmii.com> <4g62li$kuh@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
- Content-Type: text
- X-Nntp-Posting-Host: rainbow.rmii.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
- Content-Length: 832
- X-Lines: 23
- Originator: clamage@taumet
-
- Steve Clamage (clamage@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
- : rpayne@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Payne) writes:
-
- : >Why has C++ stayed with the weak typedef? It has always seemed to
- : ><snip>
-
- : I don't remember that issue ever being brought up in the C++
- : committee. The obvious argument against it is that it would
- : break too many existing programs. Whether the benefits would
- : outweigh the cost is debatable, but my feeling is that the
- : cost is too high.
-
- I would even be happy just to see a compile time warning issued, unless
- of course, the types were really incompatible. I just feel that if
- we are going to the trouble of creating abstract types, the least
- the compiler should do is issue a warning when we assign something
- of cat_t to a dog_t entity even if the underlying type is
- indigenous and compatible.
-
- Cheers,
-
- --
- Robert Payne
-
- [ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails,
- use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
- FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
- Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
- ]
-