From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-11 13:36:58
----- Original Message -----
From: "rwgk" <rwgk_at_[hidden]>
> --- 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.
It's not just theoretical at all. There are all kinds of ways in which this
comes up. I have similar problems with Boost.Python when I want to embed a
C++ object directly in a Python object. Believe me, your arguments will
carry weight with the committee... you just need to make sure they're
> 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
In some sense we're now in the realm of "no precedent" because we're working
on the first revision after standardization. There have been no major core
language changes yet. Still, I think this is one area that would find a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk