Boost logo

Boost :

From: rwgk (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-11 13:18:38

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> Don't you want a constructor? ;-)
> Check the POD requirements I posted again. Pretty restrictive.

Is the bottom line that a core language change is required
to support C or FORTRAN compatibility for a type
like std::complex? E.g., the definition of an "enhanced POD"
which allows a constructor "as a notational convenience"
but has the same guarantees as a POD?
This sounds like a big political mission for fixing a relatively
theoretical problem that might only begin to bite for real
when someone comes up with radically new hardware.
Yet, from a language designers viewpoint, I would say the
current situation is very unsatisfactory. Are there precedences
for core language changes like the one that would be required

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at