Boost logo

Boost :

From: wb_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-02-18 18:50:12

David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote on Mon Feb 18 10:20:48 2002:

| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
| To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
| > From: "Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]>
| > >>>
| > I'm reading all those pro-'auto' comments with a little fear. Why it
| > 'auto' really needed if we have a good typeof? Example:
| > <<<
| >
| > It depends on what you consider a 'good' typeof. A typeof that makes it
| easy
| > to do auto/let things (IOW one that strips references and top-level cv
| > qualifiers) isn't a good typeof as far as I'm concerned because it has
| > little value.
| >
| > There's also the fact that when you have to repeat a complex expression
| > twice you will make an error sooner or later. :-)
| And along these lines I want the ability to put a typedef /anywhere/ in a
| template declaration after the first argument (this is Walter Brown's idea):
| template <class A, typdef some_complicated_expression<A> x; class Y = X&,
| int z>
| struct Foo
| {
| ...
| };

While I appreciate the credit, Dave has actually proposed a slight
extension of my thoughts on this subject.

I was originally motivated by the distasteful and error-prone need to
duplicate some complicated type expressions in several places within a
function template:

    template< class T1, class T2, class T3 >
    typename complicated_expression<T1,T2,T3>::type
    f( T1 const &, ...) {
      typedef typename complicated_expression<T1,T2,T3>::type result;
      // ...
      return typename other_expression<result>::type( ... );

Because all I wanted a typedef whose scope was limited to the template
definition, I thought of /appending/ such typedefs to the extant
template parameter declaration list:

    template< class T1, class T2, class T3
            ; typedef complicated_expression<T1,T2,T3>::type result
    f( T1 const &, ... ) {
      // ...
      return typename other_expression<result>::type( ... );

In principle I like the freedom that Dave's extension (to allow the
typedef /amidst/ the template parameters) would bring. However, I
believe that this needs careful thought, lest we introduce confusion as
to the number of template parameters there actually are; it would be
easy to misread such a declaration since, for example, the following
really looks like three parameters at first glance, not the two that are
actually intended:

    template< class T1; typedef complicated<T1>::type result; class T3 >

More importantly, I deliberately don't want such a typedef (anyone have
a good name for this?) to interfere with any template argument type
deduction, etc.

I'm glad to see this aired for additional input; thanks.

        - WEB

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