home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage)
- Message-ID: <4g62li$kuh@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>
- X-Original-Date: 18 Feb 1996 02:24:50 GMT
- Path: in1.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 19 Feb 96 02:25:52 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: typedef not strong
- Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
- References: <4g5sm4$dtt@natasha.rmii.com>
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #21 (NOV)
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMSffvOEDnX0m9pzZAQFqxwF/aimdJp76LByB6Vwzg9Sz+UHZFB9Yq/15
- oBWzGshiAJrUb23nEDWyiXnXY13xTmU1
- =RzHt
-
- rpayne@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Payne) writes:
-
- >Why has C++ stayed with the weak typedef? It has always seemed to
- >me that it should provide a new type and not just a synomym. Some
- >lints check for strong typing but I haven't found a compiler that
- >will enforce it. I know this must have been debated at some point
- >but I didn't find it in a FAQ. Could someone please enlighten me?
-
- 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.
-
- --
- Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
- ---
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. Moderation policy:
- http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]
-