From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-26 13:15:29
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden]>
> Adding just "function template specialization" shouldn't be that hard.
> Having that feature working properly -- with respect to the least
> surprise, e.g. not breaking user code semantics -- with the rest of
> the language is far, far from trivial. I've seen no proof that is a
> pure extension, but I've seen repeat assertions that it is, of course
> without any hint of proof.
Here we go again. :-)
You are asking me to prove that something (a conforming program that does
break) doesn't exist.
Show me this program.
> Well, before I get qualified a "biggot", I would like to make it
> clear that I'm interessed in discussing formal proposal, not just
> statement that something not clearly defined is a pure extension.
Then discuss the, more or less, formal proposal (LWG Issue 226) or provide a
counter-proposal of your own.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk