Re: Most needed/desired features in C++

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