Boost logo

Boost :

From: brianjparker (brianjparker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-19 09:36:27

--- In boost_at_y..., Carl Daniel <cpdaniel_at_p...> wrote:
> I'd like to see the rule for template template argument
compatibility relaxed (e.g. such that std::vector<T,A=allocator>
> and myclass<T> would both be compatible with a template template
parameter declared as template <class>). The current
> rule appears to have been adopted to better meet with users
expectations (as compared to function pointer
> compatibility). The not-infrequent threads on c.l.c++.m about this
subject suggest that it did just the opposite:
> institutionalized behavior which is counter to expectations and
unnecessarily limiting.

I totally agree with this; in fact I would consider this change to
more of a bug fix than a language extension. The main negative effect
of the current rule is that it prevents future library classes from
adding additional template arguments with defaults whilst still
remaining backwardly compatible.

,Brian Parker

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